GbG Max Attrition getting worse with Later Ages

[.Neo.]

It appears when aging up to later ages (SAV or SAJM) troops attack capabilities in GbG really took a hit. In SAM with about 1500Attack boost and 1200 Defense boost, I was able to get to about 110 attrition in GbG (8 Sentinel). Now I am in SAJM, with almost doubled the attack and Defense stats, I am only able to hit about 120 attrition (2 Grenadiers and 6 rogues). I find it very disappointing that you work so hard and spend so much diamonds on special buildings, and the at the end you hardly make any meaningful improvement to your GbG fighting abilities. I have friends in Progressive Era and The Future who can do over 120 attrition with only 1400/1200 stats.
Can someone explain this logic? It seems to be a waste of time and effort to age up to only lose your fighting abilities in GbG. It is almost like Inno Intending for you to have to spend lots of diamonds to boost up your city to just come out even in later eras.

 

[.Neo.]

I have 2953/1957 which is much less than you and can get to 133 attrition in SAJM and with the same config of units, I think your profile has a problem or something. Not really sure what can cause that to happen to one and not the other.

That is very interesting. Are you able to do auto fights upto 133? Or with manual troop configuration you were able to hit 133? 120 is something I can do with auto fights, manual, i can put in a few attrition points higher (125). My personal best was 128.
When you say profile problem, what exactly that means? Is this something I need to create a ticket for with Inno or this is some in game setting that I am missing?

 

[Angry.Blanket]

Look at the actual attack penalty rather than just the attrition #, The attack penalty % grows faster as the attrition # goes up.
From 0 to 1 attrition is 2% penalty ,from 149 to 150 you gain over 1000% penalty

 

[.Neo.]

Look at the actual attack penalty rather than just the attrition #, The attack penalty % grows faster as the attrition # goes up.
From 0 to 1 attrition is 2% penalty ,from 149 to 150 you gain over 1000% penalty

I see - so there is really break wall there and Inno does not want us to go beyond. Do you know if the % penalty increase is the same for different eras?

 

[Angry.Blanket]

I see - so there is really break wall there and Inno does not want us to go beyond. Do you know if the % penalty increase is the same for different eras?

Yes 150 / 12000% is very hard to reach or break, mostly impossible. It is the same for all eras as far as I Know
Players in Progressive Era hitting high att are using advanced era troops, cant say for sure about FE, except Hover tanks are monsters.

 

[WiserOneFineDay]

It appears when aging up to later ages (SAV or SAJM) troops attack capabilities in GbG really took a hit. In SAM with about 1500Attack boost and 1200 Defense boost, I was able to get to about 110 attrition in GbG (8 Sentinel). Now I am in SAJM, with almost doubled the attack and Defense stats, I am only able to hit about 120 attrition (2 Grenadiers and 6 rogues). I find it very disappointing that you work so hard and spend so much diamonds on special buildings, and the at the end you hardly make any meaningful improvement to your GbG fighting abilities. I have friends in Progressive Era and The Future who can do over 120 attrition with only 1400/1200 stats.
Can someone explain this logic? It seems to be a waste of time and effort to age up to only lose your fighting abilities in GbG. It is almost like Inno Intending for you to have to spend lots of diamonds to boost up your city to just come out even in later eras.

This is strange, I'm in progressive and even with a level 70 Arctic Orangery and boosts of 1400/1200ish I'm only able to fight to around 80 attrition max in the GBG before total wipeout and being unable to beat the army with any combination of progressive troops, so it would seem that fighting ability gets much much better as one ages up.

I would say anyone in progressive saying they can fight to 120 attrition with 1400/1200 is not being truthful.

 

[85gt]

Look at the Keen Eye % in the last few ages, it gets an increase of 5% each age, so the troops that hit you have greater % of doing damage or taking out a troop, its just Inno making all our att/def less effective and Inno is in charge of how often the troops you fight against get to use Keen Eye

 

[Darkest.Knight]

I'm in SAJM and still advancing slow but surely, last check I topped out at attrition 135; time before I was at 126 max. I have noticed that getting above 135 is quite painful, 200% damage potion helped zero. We'll c how it goes next time, new highs depend on getting the "right" units to fight.

 

[qaccy]

What is with the greater number of lost units now even at low attrition? Everyone I talk to is seeing it and I have a chart over the past 8 weeks that shows the increase very clearly as an 8% increase averaged out over the 8 weeks.

Confirmation bias. There're so many different enemy configurations in GBG (and I believe they even differ between the two map layouts) that's really all it could be. No stats were changed on any of the units and no changes were made to attrition. What's left is an implication that enemy units are somehow still hitting harder and/or taking less damage now than they were a month ago, which pretty much defies objective explanation in the absence of any actual stat changes.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

I love it. Even when you have tracked the data and shown something to be going on, they come up with some random excuse to ignore the facts. "Confirmation bias" my foot.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

What is with the greater number of lost units now even at low attrition? Everyone I talk to is seeing it and I have a chart over the past 8 weeks that shows the increase very clearly as an 8% increase averaged out over the 8 weeks.

Not seeing anything different. In my main city my Traz only produces Harpoons. I've not added levels to it for at least 6 months and, while I have added a little to my red boosts it hasn't been much. I haven't changed my battling, I use only Harpoons and Rogues. Looking back six months, the number of Harpoons in my inventory has shown a steady, modest, increase (which is expected given the level of my Traz). The number of rogues has remained the same. If something had happened to increase the number of lost units it would show up on the unit timeline. Nothing has happened.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I love it. Even when you have tracked the data and shown something to be going on, they come up with some random excuse to ignore the facts. "Confirmation bias" my foot.

What was tracked? Where is the data?

 

[Emberguard]

I love it. Even when you have tracked the data and shown something to be going on, they come up with some random excuse to ignore the facts. "Confirmation bias" my foot.

Except nothing was shown from either side beyond surface level at best, therefore neither side has proven or disproven anything. All we have in this thread are generalised statements and conclusions on something no one has access to. "Trust me bro" type statements isn't showing me something.... it's asking me to trust you've done your research and that there's no holes in your conclusion

 

[Darkest.Knight]

I haven't noticed any change in my normal variability, been making it to 130 attrition for awhile with a top of 135. Last fights depends on the units, I can only beat a couple of different types of units doing only a single wave fight after reaching 130.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

I agree that Inno can change the makeup of the units we each face in any battle. There are easy units and tough unis. (and why each Era has some not so useful units!) Anyway, I believe Inno has been experimenting with the assortment of units we each face. and made the percentages a bit tougher. No big deal. No conspiracy.
Like fact the defense in PvP is strong and works well vs in Hood attacks where the defense is set to be as poor as possible. if only city defense troops had the same program as the PvP guys to defend. We all would be a lot safer from Plunder !!!
Anyway yes that troop deaths have increased. The solution? make your defensive boosts higher. Like at least 20% to 30% higher than yur attack. Particularly for players facing Keen Eye.

 

[xivarmy]

I have used the identical base/rogue pair (harpoons/Rogues) altering on the amounts to best match the opponents.

The thing is, what you have still appears to just be an anecdotal impression. A suspicion. It may be enough for you to be satisfied that something's different. But it's hard to accept that as evidence to convince a skeptic who doesn't believe anything's changed.

I can't prove that things aren't different either. There could be some sort of stealth tweak to the AI (either defending or autoattacking) or the weight that different defending armies show up (I'd presume equally distributed - but if that's not the case, that's at least something provable over thousands of samples) that does not match up well with your strategy and leads to more losses. There is a finite number of preset combinations for each GBG map (unchanged as far as I'm aware - and if you can show an army that wasn't there before that'd be an easy proof that it was).

If you at least had hard numbers (X number of fights at Y attrition before and after the supposed stealth change resulting in A vs B number of losses), that would shift things a little - we could question the statistical significance of that or biases in how the data was collected - but the effort of having collected data would at least push a number of people to the point of "well i'll take a closer look". But if you're going off memory (i.e. "I used to lose 1 unit every 5th fight i think at low attrition and now it's every 3rd or 4th fight", that's not data, just a hunch).

But the default position is "nothing's changed and everything is what it appears to be".

Of course the difficult part with wanting data on there being a difference is we can't go back and collect a rigorous before set. Before is gone.

 

[xivarmy]

It is everyone I ask not one or two and I have always been a fighter. This blurring the lines doesn't work when the entire user base is seeing it. What other company on the planet leaves a customer spending thousands per year thinking that they are cheating without directly confronting it ? Instead they send random very pro-company "members" in here to shoot down every single complaint. Try being more professional Mtg/Inno , it works much better in the end.

Well I'm not personally pro-company. I think inno is running the game into the ground with their monetization schemes.

Not to mention longstanding bugs - did you know that taking rogues into a manual battle with VF units frequently freezes the game atm and has been doing so for months to the point where support can even tell you that's what's happening as a canned response? "Just don't use rogues" ...

I just don't believe there's a good reason for them to mess with such minor details as how many troops an autobattler loses - at least not directly for that reason. I doubt they're running out of troops or stopping their autobattling.

Which isn't to say inno couldn't make such changes - it would be a rather straightforward thing to adjust the AI a little I imagine to make the attacker's troops more likely to charge out of range of rogues or something. But what would be the gain?

 

[Emberguard]

I can't prove that things aren't different either. There could be some sort of stealth tweak to the AI (either defending or autoattacking) or the weight that different defending armies show up (I'd presume equally distributed - but if that's not the case, that's at least something provable over thousands of samples) that does not match up well with your strategy and leads to more losses. There is a finite number of preset combinations for each GBG map (unchanged as far as I'm aware - and if you can show an army that wasn't there before that'd be an easy proof that it was).

If you at least had hard numbers (X number of fights at Y attrition before and after the supposed stealth change resulting in A vs B number of losses), that would shift things a little - we could question the statistical significance of that or biases in how the data was collected - but the effort of having collected data would at least push a number of people to the point of "well i'll take a closer look". But if you're going off memory (i.e. "I used to lose 1 unit every 5th fight i think at low attrition and now it's every 3rd or 4th fight", that's not data, just a hunch).

What I would really love to see is solid documentation of how often each army shows up over a extended period of time, what the results of that was, sorted by attrition (in a single age per data collected), and with the same attacking armies each time.

Sure there would be a lot of ways that sort of data could be flawed. We're never going to see what the terrain looked like during each battle, and that's really not something we'll ever be able to get data on via Auto-Battle. And unless you're 100% always under 5 Siege Camp support then of course your attrition is constantly in flux.

However, if we're recording the actual armies involved on both sides and compiling it by frequency of result it would at least give something to analyse beyond "we're losing units" and not having any meaningful context of what conditions were involved to compare against.

 

[Darkest.Knight]

I c, I don't pay attention to how many units I lose; it's never many until I get close to the end. I'm still accumulating units so I've left my Alc at 80.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

What I would really love to see is solid documentation of how often each army shows up over a extended period of time, what the results of that was, sorted by attrition (in a single age per data collected), and with the same attacking armies each time.

Sure there would be a lot of ways that sort of data could be flawed. We're never going to see what the terrain looked like during each battle, and that's really not something we'll ever be able to get data on via Auto-Battle. And unless you're 100% always under 5 Siege Camp support then of course your attrition is constantly in flux.

However, if we're recording the actual armies involved on both sides and compiling it by frequency of result it would at least give something to analyse beyond "we're losing units" and not having any meaningful context of what conditions were involved to compare against.

Presuming the defending army is current age only and can include Rogues and Champions, there are about 3000 permutations of a one-wave battle (and about 9 million permutations of a two-wave battle). If other no-age units, or prior age units, are in the mix then the number of permutations gets even more crazy.