V has some questions

Open Archived VorteX opened this discussion on

VorteX -

jesus christ youre all missing the point:

SINCE WHEN DID 11 TRIBES FAIL TO KILL AT LEAST 1 TRIBE WHICH WAS NOT FULLY TURTLED (it was a wood elf)?? SORT OUT THE GAME MECHANICS! the target didnt even have 20% GH, let alone killing a tribe with 20% GH.

my posts include hints towards fixing the game mechanics. this scandal of 4 attackers dealing WAY more damage than 11 tribes just goes to show how much the game has gone awry.

Aqualightnin -

vortex... not all 11 op'd the same target same time, some did VERY few ops total (we see failures too yaknow), and then you all STILL succeeded the attempt for the most part, but failed to FB/PW all the cits after the tick before he came on like 30 minutes later and released units to cits.

would have been fine if you had done a few less ops before tick, saving enough TP to actually finish the kill after tick.

my guess is that everyone that did op blew all available TP before tick, and the 1 tick regen wasn't enough to finish him off. 1 tick regen for you guys isnt a ton of ops, so a bit of luck (or bad luck for you guys) could easily explain why you didn't get enough success after tick for the finish. i dont think 11 people op'd after tick either, so that may have been part of it.

CBeast -

but a 2k attacker cant help really at all vs a 10k target short of forsaking his race design and trying to cast/thieve).

A 2k t/m is worthless against a 10k tribe as well. Imagine a templar full WM with ml 20 and 60% guilds against a 10k tribe with ml 20 or 20% ch...the templar MIGHT take out 1% homes with a lot of luck...

Halcyon -

in conclusion, #27 should drink less

kemi-san -

cbeast, that's simply not true. the same damage/success restrictions (60%) apply whether they're twice as large or 5x as large. small mages pwn for taking down large targets. thieves, however, usually don't have enough thieves at that size to do enough ops to really matter.

CBeast -

I agree about thieves. But I also think that a 2k tribe with ml 20 (max) against a 10k tribe with ml 20 (not max) or lost of churches is pretty much worthless...maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps I should convert to full mage mode and try to pwn all you big repts from 17...

P.S. you should train more def...I could make a very small pump and grab you if I wished to sign my own death sentence [:p][:p]

Aqualightnin -

cbeast, a 2k tribe is NOT useless vs 10k. its not much help at all, but it can do SOMETHING, which was my point. even 1 successful spell/op is better than 0.

Darkwing -


Sebulba -

lol CBeast your small pump would not be enough to grab

Lord Saggy -

Too much text. I'm down to 3/4 health.

CBeast -

Gasp! You called my bluff, I guess we'll never know, cause I wouldn't wanna do it anyway [:p]

VorteX -

always the same old bullshit... picking on technicalities and “what ifs” .... for christ's sake. ive been playing since age 2 of infinity, ON INFINITY, and not pre-infinity. im pretty much an infinity player. it has never occurred once to me that 11 tribes online at a kt cant manage to take down 1 tribe in 1 tick, even if fully turtled. you took out sci, and implemented a mechanism of CH/GH that is pretty much impossible to beat (where's the team tactics in this one???), if there are no attackers around. what's more, attackers cant take out those CH/GH without a 100% attack, while they can take out homes... but what's the use? attackers have their fun, TMs don't. face it, attackers are imba compared to TMs atm! i suggest tweaking down RAZE and tweaking down CH/GH too... besides the other points i mentioned. progress is useless if it results in regress... which is what happened really.

Bolle -

You're all weirdos. I went with 20% CH, ML 1 and 3% guilds, no problem. 0% farms, 8% markets, 30% homes, rest hideouts. Decent warmode.

So aqua suggests we went 20 walls, 5 gh 5 ch. But... we didn't know 4 attackers could deal more damage than all your t/ms. So our warmode was prepared for anti t/ms. Since it makes much more sense to use those as well.. plus there might be others who don't like us. A thief without mage def is generally a dead thief, even in war.

So sure, I agree with Aqua, we COULD have done that. But that doesn't change anything about raze's imbaness in war.

For example, there is still the matter of the usefulness of walls in war. Because you guys could've gone 20% weaps as well. I'll outline your build like you did for ours:

30% homes, 20% weaponries, 8% markets, 3% guilds, 20% GH, 19% CH.

This way, you're unkillable, and we can't avoid getting killed. All that within 4 hours. Behold Bolle's awesome argument*...

* = razes in war only


Yes, this is a repost. I can't help it. For some reason aqua thought his post was a reply.. I fail to see why.

kemi-san -

You fail to see a lot of things, so nothing new there. While I agree that raze is too good in war, I don't agree that T/M's are as useless as Vortex and Bolle seem to think. I'd take a look at the human factor in this case, because if 11 fully loaded TMs fail to kill a target, it's not because of game mechanics since we've been able to kill turtled tribes with less TMs and no attackers.

And attackers being unkillable while turtled? LOL? Balrogs, maybe. But the rest? No wai. Bolle's “awesome argument” isn't that awesome, it's kinda flawed.

OrigenX -

It all comes down to simply underestimation of what 4 attackers with huge offence can do with raze at perfect optimal size... i mean it has been arround now for a while and you could have known what kind of damage we could do with that (there are calcs arround for that even though they are inaccurate)

razes in war only seems a nice thought to me indeed, it can boost the will to war instead of killing out of war and thus create more wars [:D]

whatever you descide to do we will addapt[evilgrin]

Bolle -

I'm sorry but you could READ my post. When it says TWICE that I agree with aqua on all his points but that he misses something, and I then explicitly state WHAT he misses, and t/m is NOT part of it, how hard can it be?

I'll explain it... once again.

T/Ms. Accepting for the moment that for some reason you seem to think we don't know how to convert.

So, not 11 but 7 t/ms. They can't kill an enemy thief who has just enough thieves to be useless as def but good for lack of citz. Whatever. It's rather normal since it's a woodie after all, and if a woodie is below 25 TPA, you can barely expect a quick kill nowadays (without attackers).

So, 4 attackers, in war, who can WITHOUT weaps kill any thief at will. Or enemy attacker, as long as he's got some military. Why WITHOUT weaps? Because you RAN no weaps and we RAN no walls. So if we'd run walls, you run weaps. I just showed you how that doesn't impede your turtling in any way (see prior posts). So, in short, you need 4 attackers to kill one of us, we need more than 7 to kill one of you. In one tick.

So now get it into your heads that I don't mind the t/ms so much (sure, they may be underpowered... but I'm not so sure), but that I DO mind the attackers. In war. For Obvious reasons.

Joe -

What Bolle/VorteX try to make clear:

1: The balance between certain damage-ops is not balanced anymore. 4 attackers do more damage without any warmode at all than 7 totally warmoded thieves can do on an undefended tribe.

That's the main point [1]. Now next came some small points from different people:
1.a: The tribes that the attackers razed weren't very well defended either since they didn't run any walls.
1.b: The tribe that the thieves opped wasn't totally undefended either since he ran some TPA (~25?).

These arguments are countered by V and Bolle in this way:
1.a1: If you run walls during a warmode you aren't gonna kill anyone.
1.a2: Those attackers didn't run any weaps. If we would run walls they could still even the scale by running weaps.

Note that these two arguments are actually sustaining eachother: def/walls = less firepower = less enemy def needed = more enemy off possible = more def/walls needed = etc..

1.b1: The TPA shouldn't matter since all of our thieves had a 60+ TPA and most weren't even under 35 TPA after all ops.

Conclusion: the balance between thieves damage and attackers damage with aim to kill during a war is unbalanced.


Further there's a lot of talking and alot of lousy personal assaults, decent points and wrong reading of arguments.

kemi-san -

point 1.b addendum: not only tpa but GHs.

Bolle -

9% GH. That's minimal. Especially since I checked after vs a reptie with 20% GH and got a similar result. (EDIT cuz not clear: similar to 9% + 23 TPA. But the reptie was 1.25 times as big :P)

Anyway, the whole point is this: 4 attackers can kill me (thief) in war, walls or not.

It's the simplest argument I've ever had and still I apparently have trouble to convey it.. maybe I should stop arguing :(

Sebulba -

well just looking at a recent war news between #35 and #14

a brit survived 5 razes in war in 1 tick, not 100% sure if he was running walls but he still survived

would be interesting to hear some feedback as to if he was running walls

i cannot explain why your 7 thieves could not kill a w/e

but i dont believe there is much wrong with raze, maybe 50% more damage from raze in war is a bit too much but i still believe the brits were low on citz due to high DPA some had 390+ DPA and 60+ TPA.

In the past we have noticed some races are easier to kill because of lower citz mainly due to having both high DPA and high TPA

Martel -

I'm missing:
1) Size-differences: between the 4 attackers and their target and between the 11 tribes and their target
2) Perspective: what about the first defence against attackers - more attackers?

First, the new size-difference penalty may be at play if 11 tribes fail to make a kill.

Second, having no attackers will allow the enemy to stretch themselves thin.

Obvious things, but are they taken into proper account?

Aqualightnin -

9% GH's isnt minimal, its pretty half of max possible. thats not bad. 60 TPA vs 25 TPA (with TT on) in optimal results in “Chance: 40.76%”

without the GH, Success Chance: 59.5%.

i dunno about you, but i think that 20% damage/success difference is a huge difference!

but i dont think thats why the kill failed.

i think it comes down to you didn't have enough TP/success after tick to finish his 200 cits (because you DID take out enough homes to get him there)

part of the problem was you had thieves out from the first ops, like you said, down to about 30-35 TPA or so after tick. meaning his 25 TPA made a bigger difference than before, which probably contributed to your “inexplicably unlucky” ops when trying to finish him off.

edit - Martel - the 4 attackers where hitting targets IN OPTIMAL RANGE, so that's a big reason why the attacks did so well too. and yes, KP took a big risk not having any attackers of note on their side, and we see how that played out :P

Bolle -

Wow Aqua. You really manage to miss the point.


@Martel(1), we choose the target for his size. He was optimal for most of our t/ms.
@Martel(2), it's a weird perspective. Should overpowered attackers be balanced by overpowered attackers?

Darkwing -

I'm missing:
1) Size-differences: between the 4 attackers and their target and between the 11 tribes and their target
2) Perspective: what about the first defence against attackers - more attackers?

I'm missing:

common sense......[:|]

Halcyon -

i don't get it. the WE has citz, GHs and TPA meaning at least some level of thief defence.

the killed tribe on the other hand has no defence against raze whatsoever. most people run no walls and instead all TM defence, even if there are several in-range attackers, no prizes for guessing what they might do. then you get killed and say raze is OPed - that's a strategic mistake. instead of 20CH with 3 mages, none in WM, you can run 10%walls and 10% CH the TMs either have to spend mps (eventually, after 12+ hrs of conversion) to cyclop them down or leave them and deal with less raze dmg, either way you win.

also add the fact that this is war in which case raze is given a hefty boost, perhaps the question is whether raze dmg in war should be revisited?

so Joe i don't think you are quite saying TM < raze but TM < raze under the condition of 1) carrying less equivalent defence 2) war-gains

anyways that's my 2 min. of procrastination without having a clue of what's going on. for the day.
Page 1 2 3 4