HOW TO STOP PLUNDERERS FROM TAKIN’ YER STUFF

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
I've worked hard to increase my defense boost. I'm in Future with defense boosted at 1049% /34% and still getting picked off. How high do I need to go to shield myself? Is there a best combination for the defending army? I've got 2 rail guns, 2 hover tanks, 3 drive swarms and a champion. I'm also trying to gather info to help my guild mates put good defense strategies together! Thanks!
Yes, I'm casting Raise Dead on a deceased thread because this particular post says a great deal- none of it good- about the balance- or lack of such- in the game regarding player attacks.

Simply put, there should be absolute no way that an attacker should be able to defeat a 1000% plus City Defense on a consistent basis without employing some serious strategery.

And no, using 1 Real Unit plus 7 Rogues isn't "strategery". You can tell yourself that it is, but you can also call a cow a horse; it don't make it so.

I'll grant that the poster could be using a better mix of defensive units. But having a Defensive boost that is likely 500% higher than the attacker's Offensive boost should make up for any mistakes on the part of the poster.

I suspect that a contributing factor is the lack of Offensive boost for the poster's Defending Army. I've seen quite a few reports of players with outstanding Defensive boosts but not much in the way of an ATT boost for their defensive army. I know mine is somewhere around 45%/540%, which is clearly not enough, because even the Defensive boost for their Attacking armies is approaching 200%. It is easier to the point of being ridiculously easy to raise boosts for Attackers than it is for Defenders. There's no question that Inno is quite aware of this shortcoming (my opinion), but it seems not to be an issue they see any need to address.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
Good grief, how often do you get attacked anyway? I have seven cities and it's extremely rare that any of them are attacked even once a day. There have been unusually aggressive neighborhoods where one or two have been attacked twice a day, but that's happened a handful of times in 4+ years.

I'm sure Inno sees nothing to address because people like to win when they attack, and losing a defensive battle costs you exactly nothing.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
The frequency of occurrence is irrelevant. Inno has given us things that no one really wanted (Settlements, for instance), so it's obvious that they are...let's say "selective" when it comes to applying their efforts on behalf of player requests. That a thing which happens infrequently due to a shortcoming in a given system does not mean that it should not be addressed.

And if it were a case of attacking for Tower Points, that would be...well, not "better" but perhaps "less bad". It's still relying on a broken game mechanic in order to achieve a goal. But a sizable plurality, if not an outright majority, of such players extend the attack to a plunder, again benefiting from a broken game mechanic. Fix the mechanic- an easy fix by the way because the fix is already a part of the game- and let's see who are the real Sun Tzus and who the Armchair Generals.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
The frequency of occurrence is irrelevant.
Then I don't see what the problem is. I think frequency would have everything to do with someone constantly calling for improvements to their city's defensive army. Otherwise it's a solution in search of a problem. The consequences of being attacked are nothing. You lose nothing. The worst-case scenario is that then the attacker can plunder you, in which case you lose the production of one building. That can be significant, but that is also largely within your control. Collect on time and you're back to losing nothing. Where is the perceived problem, unless you're being plundered multiple times a day, every day?

That a thing which happens infrequently due to a shortcoming in a given system does not mean that it should not be addressed.
You're presuming that it's a shortcoming. You state that it's broken as if that is an objective game design analysis and not just your opinion. I think it's obvious that Inno doesn't consider anything broken; what's more, many players don't either. For instance, there is no consensus on this forum that it's a problem. It's barely mentioned except by brand-new players once every few months, and by you in almost every post you make. It is rare that anyone in any of my seven guilds complains about getting beaten by neighbors, and even when they do they don't view it as a broken mechanic, they ask how they can improve their city and their game play to mitigate it. Thus my question about how often you're being attacked. Something must be motivating you to harp on this subject, and I doubt it's the fact that you'd prefer to lose more often when you're attacking.

When you are losing nothing, when there are no real consequences, then there is no problem. So what would motivate someone to repeatedly claim it is a problem? Getting their butt whooped a lot is the only thing I can come up with. In other words: pride. I get that; I don't like seeing that notification either, that my city's been breached. I want revenge! But that doesn't mean the game is faulty, even if it happens a lot. In fact, the only thing it does mean is that more than likely my revenge will be successful as well.

I once played a space game where you had to load up every scrap of production you had onto ships and send them off-world while you were away, else a successful attack would allow the aggressor to make off with as much of your stuff as they could cram into their cargo holds. You could literally lose everything. That was a mechanic that's broken, but the relative advantage of the attacker wasn't the broken part; it's the fact that they could completely wipe out weeks and months of production that was the problematic part. It was akin to an FoE attacker being able to plunder your entire inventory. Losing stuff from one building, even if it happens every day, does not a broken mechanic make. Not when there is a way for you to ensure that you don't even lose that.

So to pursue your quest to make things a lot harder on attackers, first you have to prove your assertions that the system is objectively broken; then you have the larger task of convincing Inno (and the rest of us) that we shouldn't play a war game to win.
 

DevaCat

Well-Known Member
The only way to determine who are the real Sun Tzus and who are the armchair generals is to have real-time manual battles, and that's not this game.

In one of my early posts responding to a new player complaining about the unfairness of it all, I wrote about how it was a matter of perspective. I had been chapped myself, but finally came to see it as not a matter of other players being thieving bullies or of a broken game mechanic (although the defense AI is dumber than a brick) but rather it was the game itself telling me I needed to learn how to play it better and that I had been neglecting some rather important areas. Things like building the best DAs I could, building military GBs I'd neglected, learning how to protect my stuff, and getting myself out of the bottom of the hood asap. All helped along with advice given by many of you in this thread.

It's worked so well that in four cities I seldom get attacked, even more rarely plundered. In my oldest, strongest city (oddly enough) I get the occasional unsuccessful suicide run from someone mid-hood, but that's about it. Youngest city? Yeah, some hoods just suck and I get beat and plundered too even though I'm in the top ten. Game's telling me I've gotten sloppy in my collections and need to tighten up, at least for that hood.

Revenge? Yeah, I'm human and I'd like to hit back. And when I check and see that attacker's city and see it would be pointless to even try, I fume a bit. But then that's the game again, telling me "Yeah, thought you were hot, didn't you? Now get back to work on upping those attacking army boosts!" I think not being able to retaliate fuels a lot of the debate.

Atk boosts for defense army? Sure, give me more. But I'm in the camp of not wasting much space on defense. The arms race will continue and I'd rather concentrate on a mobile offense than a static defense.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
"Objective proof" that this is a broken game mechanic is the fact that cities and the continent map have different AIs governing their defense. Why have two different AIs for what is, essentially, the same activity? And why so different? If Inno thinks that their city defense AI is perfectly acceptable, then why go to all the trouble to implement a totally different- and much more effective- AI for another facet of their game? If Inno thinks their continent defense AI necessary, then why go to all the trouble to write an entirely different AI into their game? Why not just use "One AI To Rule Them All"?

And I have zero doubt that "many players" don't see it as a problem because those very same "many players" might just be the ones to take advantage of a broken game mechanic.

What otherwise very insightful players seem to overlook is that an entire facet of Inno's game- city defense via military units- is utterly and completely useless (or as near to it as makes no difference- once a player understands and implements "1+7", then city defense via a military is meaningless). Yes, there are other ways of dealing with attackers, such as "Collect On Time", but I see that as rather an excuse on the part of some players so as to justify their activities. I cannot call it an "exploit" because Inno seems not to consider this facet of their game to be broken, though it clearly is.

Again, look at the scenario the OP lays out: a >>>1000%++ DEFENSE<<< is useless, defeated by an attacker with a bonus almost certainly less than half that...and the attacker uses "1+7". Care to speculate the outcome if the player had to- gasp!- actually think about what real units to use?

Nothing at all wrong with "playing a game to win". It's just asking that "playing to win" be a wee bit of a challenge rather than the "easy button" it is now.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
"Objective proof" that this is a broken game mechanic is the fact that cities and the continent map have different AIs governing their defense.
That's not objective proof of anything except that Inno views those arenas differently. In GvG you're going against same-era troops. In GE you're going against a mix of previous-era and current-era troops, in proportions that change, and with bonuses that increase the farther you go. In PvP you could be going against previous-era, current-era, or even more advanced troops, (or spearthrowers) in a myriad of configurations. The fact that the AI works differently in each of those is in no way objective proof that any of them is broken. It's a valid question to ask but it's not objective proof, in and of itself, of anything other than the fact that there are differences.

What otherwise very insightful players seem to overlook is that an entire facet of Inno's game- city defense via military units- is utterly and completely useless (or as near to it as makes no difference- once a player understands and implements "1+7", then city defense via a military is meaningless).
It's not completely useless, but it does mean that Inno's design favors the attacker. To which I respond: good. This is a war game and people don't play war games so they can lose half the time. In addition, at the risk of being repetitive, losing a battle is also meaningless because the defender loses nothing. You'd have a stronger argument for "broken" if defensive troops were permanently killed, but they aren't, so you don't.

Yes, there are other ways of dealing with attackers, such as "Collect On Time", but I see that as rather an excuse on the part of some players so as to justify their activities.
Well, I won't call your opinion wrong even though it's an attempt to both stereotype other players and dismiss the point without addressing it. It isn't only plunderers who advocate collecting on time. I rarely plunder, even when I attack, and I recognize that collecting on time prevents plunder 100% of the time. Since it sounds like plunder is what you're worried about, I keep coming back to my original point: I don't think people are plundered often enough to warrant any changes, especially when they learn to collect diligently; I think people like to win enough that they don't want any changes; therefore, there's nothing objectively broken. This game favors the attacker in PvP. That's not an exploit, it's not a bug, it's not broken. That's the way it's been designed, and enjoyed.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
Why have two different AIs for what is, essentially, the same activity?
They aren't the same activity.

You keep saying 'broken'. It;s working exactly as INNO wants it to work.

INNO gave the CMap a different AI because that is what INNO wants because they believe it's best for the game and for the company. The exact reasons?

Any player can deduce the exact reasons why INNO does anything with a bit of reasoning, an understanding of what INNo has done ver the years and starting from these two axioms:

INNO is a competent for profit company.

INNO knows better then we ever will what the players like because they can see exactly what we do including on what we spend time, effort, and money.

i'd run through the exact line of reasoning for you, but you'll summarily reject it again. Shan't argue with you no mo'. You'll either start thinking things through from a broader viewpoint or not. Your choice.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
They aren't the same activity.
One is an attack by a player on an AI defense while the other one is an attack by a player on an AI defense. I can readily see the difference....

You keep saying 'broken'. It;s working exactly as INNO wants it to work.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

INNO gave the CMap a different AI because that is what INNO wants because they believe it's best for the game and for the company. The exact reasons?

Any player can deduce the exact reasons why INNO does anything with a bit of reasoning, an understanding of what INNo has done ver the years and starting from these two axioms:

INNO is a competent for profit company.

INNO knows better then we ever will what the players like because they can see exactly what we do including on what we spend time, effort, and money.
Do we know for sure that, if Inno implemented some balance in this aspect of the game that their bottom line would suffer? How do we know that?

While there is no doubt that those taking advantage of this.....peculiarly-designed mechanic....would throw themselves on the floor and have a fit if they were actually forced to give up their "easy button", I question just how many folks make up that segment of the game. No doubt that they are quite vociferous in their defense of said "easy button", but do they just make so much noise that their numbers seem larger than they are? It's a possibility.

i'd run through the exact line of reasoning for you, but you'll summarily reject it again. Shan't argue with you no mo'. You'll either start thinking things through from a broader viewpoint or not. Your choice.
If by "broader viewpoint" you mean "I'll come 'round to agreeing with those that employ the Easy Button"- you're right: it's not going to happen. Forgive me for thinking that a "strategy game" should actually involve, you know, some "strategy".
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
"It's not completely useless, but it does mean that Inno's design favors the attacker. To which I respond: good. This is a war game and people don't play war games so they can lose half the time. In addition, at the risk of being repetitive, losing a battle is also meaningless because the defender loses nothing. You'd have a stronger argument for "broken" if defensive troops were permanently killed, but they aren't, so you don't. "

But then neither do people play a war game in which their defenses are defeated by a broken game mechanic 99% of the time.

Why is it perfectly okay, in your mind, that an aggressive player should not have to be subject to any real chance of failure but that a defensive player should just accept his fate that he has almost no real chance of success?
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
Why is it perfectly okay, in your mind, that an aggressive player should not have to be subject to any real chance of failure but that a defensive player should just accept his fate that he has almost no real chance of success?
If you haven't discerned my thinking at this point I don't think restating it is going to help. I have either failed to communicate effectively or you just don't want to hear it. Either way, I've said all I have to say.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
If by "broader viewpoint" you mean "I'll come 'round to agreeing with those that employ the Easy Button"-
Stop right there. Don't put quotes around something I said, then more quotes around something I did not say. I don;t know why you want to imply i said the second quote. I didn't.

If you don't understand what I say, then ask.

Let's try this again since I was not clear enough the first time around for you to understand.

INNO is a competent for profit business and INNO knows us better then we do.

Do you have any problem accepting either or both of those statements?
 

Lord Jundland

New Member
I tend to agree with Mustupha00. I think Inno has ruined the game by making it too easy to breach city defenses. My city defenses are now 145%/1264%, and yet many players in my neighborhood can get through as if I have no defense at all. I enjoy the city-building aspect of the game, and I tried to set up my city defenses so I can play casually and collect when I have time to collect without worrying about thieves, but its impossible. Inno's philosophy clearly aligns more with Graviton's. Today I was 10 minutes late collecting because I was playing with my 3 year old daughter, and sure enough some pos thief plundered my Moon Gate. It made me so mad I yelled and scared my daughter. Probably time to quit the game.