V has some questions

Open Archived VorteX opened this discussion on

BladetheWicked -

Sebulba, 2 hours ago

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.

the britt had 280dpa, 30tpa, 25% warding and no walls and those 5 razes took him down to 9% homes and 200 citz and he only survived by releasing after tick

Bolle -

the killed tribe on the other hand has no defence against raze whatsoever.

Halcyon, don't come up with that fancy all the time. I have explained over a hundred times how the defense did not matter, because you guys should have gone 20% weaps (in case we went 20% walls). And weaps nullify walls, therefore in the case it does not matter whether or not walls were run (as long as the attackers ran no weaps, which they didn't.)

And oh, I would like to interprete Blade's note as an argument pro imbalanced raze.

Joe -

I wasn't talking about any t/m's actually. I was only talking about 7 thieves and 4 attackers, no t/m's there =)

It's just that it seemed somewhat funny to me how much effort people seem to make to misunderstand the point that Bolle and V try to make.

Which is: 7 fully warmoded thieves do less damage than 4 casually pumped attackers during a war to a semi-defended tribe. (A tribe without walls is semi-defended because he DOES have defence and the walls can be countered by weaps as 1.a1 states, like a Woodie with 9% GH (sorry, I didn't read very careful and I missed those, they are a good point :P) and 25 TPA is semi-defended against several 60+ TPA fully warmoded Britts with 40+ arsons)

But I don't want to bicker on too much about it since it's all not very interesting to me. It is a dev issue though.

Aqualightnin -

“(in case we went 20% walls)”

LOL yes, we should have went 20% weaps incase ONE of our 4 war targets randomly declares on us AND uses walls....

and joe..
“I was only talking about 7 thieves and 4 attackers, no t/m's there”

t/m means thieves or mages... so there is 7 T/M's there.. but thats beside the point :P. is there a different meaning for T/M that applies here that im not aware of?

and the razes didnt do MORE damage than equivalent T/M's. its just the brits were opping targets at 40-50% success rate doing 80% damage at best because of churches. while the razes were hitting targets with 75% razes on targets with no reduction/defensive factors. so yes, the razes took out more homes than the brit's arsons, but that's because the razes were hitting targets that were in optimal with no walls to reduce the damage.

if you take out the negative modifiers from the buildings that the brit's target had, they did more damage total, it's just defensive measures reduced it. (and size factors)

incoming bad analogy -
saying that razes did more damage than the brits ops, without mentioning the defensive factors in play and what not, is like having two people get shot in the chest, except one is wearing kevlar AND being shot from farther away. the guy without kevlar dies, but the guy with the kevlar doesn't die. then concluding that the first bullet was stronger... see how silly that sounds? it wasn't any stronger, it was just hitting a weaker object.

someone did the math on # of homes destroyed by each size, and concluded the razes did more damage, but you cant judge by # of homes destroyed alone, there are many factors.

one of which being the target getting razed was about twice the size of the target getting arsoned, so will of course have many more homes destroyed, because damage is percent based. judging by homes destroyed would be more viable if they were of comparable sizes, but they weren't. and either way you cant ignore the fact that one side had defensive factors, and the other had none.

Joe -

@ aqua: there is no defence against razes. That's why it's damage should be downtuned in war ;)

To make the point even more clear: imagine your repties ran 20% weaps.. In that case 2 attackers would be doing more damage than 7 thieves :P
In case of a fully antiraze-turtled tribe (20% walls is max) the 4 attackers would still do more damage if they had a half-warmode (20% weap) than the 7 thieves would have done on a meagre-deffed tribe (9% GH) while running a huge warmode (40+% hideouts)

Conclusion: an attacker does more damage on a full turtled tribe while taking only 20% space of his land as weaps than a thief does on a half-deffed tribe while using 40-50% of his tribe as hideouts leaving himself more vulnerable for lots of stuff.

I don't see how people can miss this :P

Cougar -

well i guess if those repties ran 20% weaps they would rather grab than raze?

and the end result would probably be the same DEATH

VorteX -

grab? they were bigger than us, get your facts right...

listen, we never, EVER, complained about raid, grab, BC, BG... if used tactfully, imo those attacks are enough for an attacker. maybe commandeer too. but seriously... when we had attackers, sometimes we managed to do a grab-only kill. AND attackers can be TMs. so why giving them all this extra power? to make them more playable? fine by me... but atm they're imba, except for a couple of attackers which are too space inefficient

Cougar -

the repts were ranged between 7.5k - 8.5k and had huge offensive power allowing them to do 80% + razes

the biggest brit they killed was 8.8k samllest being 7.8k

it was not all razes as us LE's did do voids (removing elendian saves alot of homes) and some DM's

out of war the razes would not of killed anyone in 1 tick

so the problem that everyone is complaining about really is the raze bonus damage in war (50%). imo the raze itself as a attack (out of war) is fine and not overpowered

Plato -

The problem is not raze attacks, but that its 100% accurate (no real protection from it) and the 50% extra war damage really dont help...

If lets say a thieve runs 20 arsons against a tribe exactly his size but that target has 0 thieves and no GH. The thieve would still fail a few ops.

If the attacker do the same, sends 100% of the targets defence, that will be 100% success.

Sure the attacker takes a risk in attacking, but the thieves take a risk when he/she sends out his thieves aswell.

VorteX -

exactly... plus it deals too much damage in war.

Martel -

The guide is wrong when it says Raze does 50% extra damage during war. It does 50% less damage outside of war. It was created for use during war.

Here's the spec, use it for discussions on Raze's damage.

With a normal 100% Raze it does the damage of 20 arsons. (Though actually it does 22,5.)

So how many arsons should Raze be worth?

Your troops rush into the lands of the enemy without care to numbers, destroying as many homes as they can.

* Can send 50% to 100% in offense of opponent's defense, with maximum damage dealt with 100% of offense sent. Destroys a number of homes, equivalent to 10-20 arsons 15-22,5 arsons depending on how much offense is sent. Homes destroyed cannot be built upon for 2 updates.
* Troops sent on a raze need 2 more updates to recover (for all races except for Vikings).
* Optimal damage range from 50% to 150% of your tribe land size.
* Losses equal to blasphemy crusade.
* Deals 50% more damage in war.
* Deals 50% less damage outside of war.

Aqualightnin -

what i dont get is why everyone is saying there's no defense against it...

if you have enough defense so that they can only get a 50% raze effectively is the same as having 20% churches when a good mage casts DM's on you. and if yours is high enough to where they cant hit you, then you're immune to them all together.

this is effectively a hardblock against everyone below 75% your size, and nothing even close to that exists against T/M... thats a huge defensive measure.

Joe -

@ Martel: WOW! So actually in war raze does double damage... ('normal' raze = 50% damage, in war = 100% damage = 2 times 50%)

@ aqua: that's true, but you'll need double the offenders offence in defence. For most tribes, they will (almost) run out of citz before they can even reach that, let alone thieves that also need to run thieves (that are out generally during a war)

For example: I was a fairly efficient Britt with some 65 TPA and 360(?) raw DPA. Generally I ran 20% walls along for more thieves but during war I raze those obviously for hideouts. Now me, being bigger than those Repties, gets razed with 4 70-80% breaks by those Repties instantly killing me with some smart voiding along. It's not like running more def would have left me enough citz to resist any loose DM coming my way.

OrigenX -

Plato, 6 hours ago

The problem is not raze attacks, but that its 100% accurate (no real protection from it) and the 50% extra war damage really dont help...

If lets say a thieve runs 20 arsons against a tribe exactly his size but that target has 0 thieves and no GH. The thieve would still fail a few ops.

If the attacker do the same, sends 100% of the targets defence, that will be 100% success.

Sure the attacker takes a risk in attacking, but the thieves take a risk when he/she sends out his thieves aswell.

There is a big difference

sure the attackers raze cant be blocked and takes some more risk sending out def vs the thvs sending out thve def (although most thve tribes have their thvs back quicker then most attackers have their mil back)

attackers doing raze can only do it once every 6hrs so thats 22,5 arsons (excl weaps) every 6 hrs (in general)VS a thve tribe in warmode who can do easily 30-40 arsons every 5 hrs (avarage)

this is ofcourse counter balanced by the razed acres going into incoming acres instead of direct brrn

so thve tribes generally can send way more ops but have higher failrates

attackers raze is really a blitz attack and perfectly suited for 1 tick KA's where thve tribes can get a second strike in before the new homes comes in (if the target has rebuilded asap)

and Vortex the attackers where given this ability because ages ago there was a situation where attackers where found not too usefull in wars (especially against higher targets who they couldnt grab) that time too there was alot of discussion about it and raze was provided as an anwser

I dont know if orkfia is better or worse with the RAZE but its an xtra strategic capability which you are also asking for, maybe the damage can be high in some cases but if we repts where say 2k acres smaller then we where in the war we prob couldnt have done much against the britts (MH we prob would still be able to kill) this case might have been a perfect situation

Changes should not be made on just one situation but on multiple and then tweak it. So we need more input from other wars/raze kills. surely 17 isnt the only alliance thats using it

About why 11 TMs cant kill a defended tribe at semi turtle i cant really say i dont know the succes % of the britts, it might be that the damage reduction from GH/CH are too high or the failrates for arson are too big but that can all be tested in devork (or am i wrong?)

Martel -

@ Joe: Normal raze (=in war) = 100%. Raze outside of war = 50%.

The article could have been interpreted your way though.

Aqualightnin -

joe, first, what he said <points at martel>. its normal damage in war, and half out of war. not 100% BONUS, but 100% of normal.

second, i wasn't saying it would do anything against same sized tribes, i was pointing out how high defense makes you 100% immune to attackers smaller than you (past a certain point)..

yes, a 10k tribe trying to have 2x defense as another 10k tribes offense isn't going to happen typically.. but that 10k tribe will EASILY have 2x the defense of a 4k tribes offense, meaning below a certain point, attackers cant do anything to a tribe. whereas T/M's can always at least try something. raze is in place to give those tribes at least something for a bit more range, but below its 50% range, they cant do anything... so that is a big downside to them.

Plato -

OrigenX you say it yourself, 11 theives cant kill a tribe with 9% gh and (relative) low tpa. But 4 attackers can land a kill on not one not two but... With help from mv´s.

And the part that thieves dont risk that much sending out their theives, I beg the difference I have seen tribes die cause of sending out thieves on a TE (and not having gh)...

Bolle -

@ Martel: WOW! So actually in war raze does double damage... ('normal' raze = 50% damage, in war = 100% damage = 2 times 50%)

Joe's words. I'm bad at math, but I believe that 100/2 is 50. If you multiply something by 2, that's called a 100% increase.

@Aqua, yeah it'd better be like that. Why else even TRY to be explorer? But at any rate, the truth of that is rather relative. After all, it's partially a matter of suicide for elite attackers. And most attackers are currently elite (or at least there's a large part of them elite).

And you're overgeneralizing. 10k isn't 4k, but 6k tribes can raze 10k tribes generally. It's a simple matter of calcing with CPA. Generally, the barrier will be somewhere around 65% of the target's size (huge ones or super small ones exempted).

kemi-san -

if he died from sending thieves on a thruth's eye mission he has bigger problems than game mechanics [:p]

Aqualightnin -

bolle - i agree, it is usually around 65%.. meaning attackers cant do ANYTHING AT ALL to a tribe above that size, which is my point. whereas a TM can cast on something 10x their size and still have a chance of doing something, which was all i was trying to say with that. i was pointing out a downside to attackers.

and plato, he never said that, he even said we've killed targets that turtled or more, with only 3-4 guys.

and he was pointing out that if am attacker suicides to do a raze/grab, he can be mass grabbed and killed easily too. whereas a thief can do damage without sending out enough thieves to skrew themselves. yes, if they TA (TE'ing more than 1 thief is insanity) all their thieves they are vulnerable, but if they just send out enough theives to do 20-30 arsons, that wont be every last one of their thieves, especially for races like brits who have a ton of thieves (as high as 90 TPA i've seen).

both attackers and thieves leave themselves a bit open when doing offensive actions, but typically an attacker does so to a much higher degree than a thief (and a thief isnt REQUIRED to send out massive amounts of thieves every op, they could do just a few ops per tick if they chose, they have that option. whereas just to succeed a single attack, attackers might have to send out 80% of there defense)

mages can cast all they want without leaving themselves open at all on the other hand, maybe they need a nerf there then... haha

Bolle -

mages can cast all they want without leaving themselves open at all on the other hand, maybe they need a nerf there then... haha

nah. Mages need most % for a decent warmode. Thieves can run nice HOs and still have def. Mages generally have a much bigger problem in that regard.

Aqualightnin -

lol yea, that was a joke :P

Plato -

I really dont complain, that the attackers has the ability to change a war, but looking at the war between 27 and 17 it feels that something was wrong... 17 was in turtle mode (or so I have been told in these forums) while 27 was in warmode (which I am told in these forums aswell). And still 4 turtled attackers did change everything. It could have been just coinsidence, but for me it feels rather sucky...

But heck I am not in 17 nor 27 and have no feelings what so ever for either. But the game is best when there are some balance between attackers/mages/thieves.

And yes a sucky noob I am, TA it should be not TE...

Bolle -

it's whatsoever :P

(I study english now.. sorry)

Plato -

and I dont Bolle [cry]
Page 1 2 3 4