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.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!
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?The frequency of occurrence is irrelevant.
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.That a thing which happens infrequently due to a shortcoming in a given system does not mean that it should not be addressed.
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."Objective proof" that this is a broken game mechanic is the fact that cities and the continent map have different AIs governing their defense.
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.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).
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.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.
They aren't the same activity.Why have two different AIs for what is, essentially, 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....They aren't the same activity.
The two are not mutually exclusive.You keep saying 'broken'. It;s working exactly as INNO wants it to work.
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?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.
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".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 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.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?
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 by "broader viewpoint" you mean "I'll come 'round to agreeing with those that employ the Easy Button"-