A polite request for some official feedback...

[Ramshutu]

Anyone who is playing this game know that the casualty mechanics are currently broken. It is currently not possible play this game in a sustainable way whilst raiding and attacking. I'm not going to go into details about this, as there are plenty of posts about this.

I could spend time moaning, or complaining about the way things are, but being a software developer myself, *I really appreciate the difficulty in making changes, and fixing issues that may not be as simple as they seem.

Saying this, however, you can see from a number of posts in this forum that the lack of detailed communication on this issue is simple feeding speculation and frustration and I feel for such a significant issue, funzio needs to engage more with the community on this issue.

We've all been pretty patient, here, and I'm not posting this simply to lay blame, complain about how rubbish Funzio is, or how many babies they eat. For me, and I hope I'm not alone, all we really need is a little feedback. There seems to be a few posts saying 'were working on it' followed by silence. This is just building distrust.

I think information along the following lines would be incredibly helpful, for me at least, to help understand and appreciate whats going on:

1.) What is your intent for pvp? What are your criteria for judging whether it's. Balanced? It would help us a lot if we could understand what you want the system to do, or at least cushion the bow if you want it to work differently from what we expect.*

2.) What is the cause of this issue? By the nature of how long it has taken, its obvious that it isn't the case that someone had used 'I < 0' rather than 'I <= 0'. Understanding what has gone wrong would help us have more sympathy for you on why it is taking so long to fix!

3.) Realistically, when will it be resolved. I know the spectre of gantt charts and deadlines is always annoying, but it always help soothe equally annoying and cantankerous people like me!

4.) the above may not be possible, hopefully the appointment of a community manager may assist here, if we can't have the above, regular proactive feedback about how things are progressing is really important. *

Please don't take this post in anyway angry, or overly negative. Think of it like a hyperactive child bugging their dad about when he will fix their favourite bike! And if it seems like we're repeating ourselves with the same thing over and over game as if we're discussing M4A1's, it's just because of how serious this issue is.

[JMC]

Whatever happened to LFizzle?

[stricker]

Must have fizzled out?????
Where is Boomer?
...Boomer... You there?

[War Priest]

Must have fizzled out?????
Where is Boomer?
...Boomer... You there?

He's here...He just posted in my thread like 5 minutes ago. :D

[Njwmrb]

It's nice that someone took the time to compose an organized proposition instead of the daily rant about the problem.

[Col.34w]

Yes. Thanks Ram for stirring the pot again, however it is Clearly obvious the issue is driven by greed and not incompetence judging by the lack of response by Funzio. Lately I have been looting the naval battle purposely to level up quickly so I get annihilated (or not) by the rich causing even more frustration ending with "delete app"

[Desas]

My five cents to support the thread.

Funzio - please at least say "it's like this, we will change nothing - deal with it or delete the app" (or smth more polite :) )

I'd feel more confident then, because now the activity in pvp is 0 (well... I am attacking like hell, just no one is attacking me, and I am not a strong player, so I guess it's turtle time...)

[Nicz]

I appreciate this thread, more communication could be better...

Actually, PVP is really broken... As if i have 14k att at level 69, and burst guys with 3/4k att, i loose everytime at least 1 unit, sometimes meat shield, but often GIGN, and it cost too much and decrease my stats, the 400/500 valour pvp quest is useless...

So, Funzio, please, just tell us the true, not "we're working on those problems" and silence after...

I only play this game for challenge, being competitive and better than others, PVP is the most interesting thing in your game, so REACT.

(Sorry if they are some mistakes, i'm french ^^)

[Agent Orange]

Thanks for trying to get to the bottom of this issue.

I have a funny feeling that the devs have been making small adjustments for a while but not really saying much since they were probably not that noticable.

In the lower levels PvP isn't that broken for those with low ally counts but in the higher levels losses seem to consistanlty outweigh any gains making attacking and raiding useless except for those with all gold armies since losses are immaterial to them.

In the high levels I honestly don't know whether there can be a fix, if you drop PvP losses well that just means that those with superior forces will decimate those who are weaker and this is because after level 90 eveyone is lumped into the same rivals list. Again in the lower levels the rivals lists are a lot more evenly put together since it is based on number of allies and level. The problem with the highest levels is that there aren't enough players to go around although lately that is changing and I'm seeing a lot of fresh names turning up with stats all over the place. Not sure I would want to be a L90 player with 1 ally but have seen that.

It really seems that Funzio is abandoning the game past L100 since at that point goals dry up, well ok I never bothered building 8 brick walls but the only PvP goal I have right now is to win attacks against players at L122 or greater. Plus the one goal for maps that doesn't exist and has been stuck in my list since last year.

Perhaps what is needed is just a note saying we've hit the end of the line, and a post about who the most powerful players are, though I would say I would like to see an award for the most creative player(s) with the most clever strategies (That's you BB and Mrs D)....

[digitalwalker]

I m thinking of pvp is not broken, what is wrong is that that the maximum 300k attack payout is too little compare with the lost in high levels.

Curent casualty rate has already been minimized in quite a few way, but ppl still can not accept of losing units worth more than 300k. That's y people complaining.

I think funzio may be better to work on how to encourage players keep theirs cash out, and at the same time cancel the 300k limit, so the whole pvp system will be activatived and cash will flow around players very quickly. The protection of weak players must be considered..etc

[HGF69]

I hope the debs answer this thread and gain some respect instead of reading it and pretending these issues will disappear.

[JMC]

I m thinking of pvp is not broken, what is wrong is that that the maximum 300k attack payout is too little compare with the lost in high levels.

Curent casualty rate has already been minimized in quite a few way, but ppl still can not accept of losing units worth more than 300k. That's y people complaining.

I think funzio may be better to work on how to encourage players keep theirs cash out, and at the same time cancel the 300k limit, so the whole pvp system will be activatived and cash will flow around players very quickly. The protection of weak players must be considered..etc

There's also the issue that i sometimes lose up to 3 units in one battle against someone that i am 42000x stronger than.

There are 2 or 3 people on my rivals list who bring a total of 1 scout or 1 jeep to defend their base. Sometimes there are zero casualties, but usually there's one or two and sometimes there are 3. Then on top of that, these guys kill high value units and valor units as much as they kill meatshields. That is what is broken with the PvP, not just the fact that our armies are getting more expensive and the units we're losing are worth more. If someone is that much weaker than me there should be zero casualties. Also weak, high casualty meatshields that i have hundreds of, should not die at the same rate as strong, low casualty units that i have 1-10 of. That is what's happening right now.

If i regularly attack and i never touch anyone that has more than 15% of my strength i should not be losing hundreds of units a day. That is what's happening when i do decide to attack though.

[Agent Orange]

I m thinking of pvp is not broken, what is wrong is that that the maximum 300k attack payout is too little compare with the lost in high levels.

Curent casualty rate has already been minimized in quite a few way, but ppl still can not accept of losing units worth more than 300k. That's y people complaining.

I think funzio may be better to work on how to encourage players keep theirs cash out, and at the same time cancel the 300k limit, so the whole pvp system will be activatived and cash will flow around players very quickly. The protection of weak players must be considered..etc

That $300,000 limit was likely the result of complaints from a few newer players who bought a lot of cash but did not protect it and got totally screwed for millions. Yes hindsight is 20/20 but hoestly if I spent a hundred real bucks on something and it vaporized before I could use it I would be angry too.

This nanotech building is interesting as you will visibly have 10 million exposed before you buy it. Granted the work around would be if you were buying cash is to get a friend non ally to attack you until you were to weak to fight, then buy the cash, the buy the building immediately in that two hour time frame.

[Agent Orange]

There's also the issue that i sometimes lose up to 3 units in one battle against someone that i am 42000x stronger than.

There are 2 or 3 people on my rivals list who bring a total of 1 scout or 1 jeep to defend their base. Sometimes there are zero casualties, but usually there's one or two and sometimes there are 3. Then on top of that, these guys kill high value units and valor units as much as they kill meatshields. That is what is broken with the PvP, not just the fact that our armies are getting more expensive and the units we're losing are worth more. If someone is that much weaker than me there should be zero casualties. Also weak, high casualty meatshields that i have hundreds of, should not die at the same rate as strong, low casualty units that i have 1-10 of. That is what's happening right now.

If i regularly attack and i never touch anyone that has more than 15% of my strength i should not be losing hundreds of units a day. That is what's happening when i do decide to attack though.

Well I spoke too soon, my LLP is now experiencing very unusual fight results. When attacked by someone considerably stronger they loose a fight but win another. When attacking someone a lot weaker they can win several fights then suddenly loose one even though they are still a lot more powerful.

This wasn't happening yesterday so must be something new today, making the game even more unplayable than it was.

I haven't had a bad a result with multiple losses but do see a lot of Super Hornets get picked off by very weak players when I'm in as my original player.

I guess this coupled with the lack of any real goals up past L100 means I'm going to be done here pretty soon.

[digitalwalker]

@JMC and Agent:

I have a thought which has been in my mind for quite a long time, I would like to hear some opinions from you two, thx.

I was thinking of the skill points play the vital role on units casualty.

Agent u did pointed out in another thread that raiding defence buildings or protected buildings will result in a great loss of units, I agree totally with u as I experience the same. By noting that every buildings have defence stats in interval of 0-100ish which is exactly in the same scale of our skill points, and we knew raid a low level low defence money building mostly gives zero loss of units, but when raid buildings have high defence stats, usually will lost a lot. So theirs 0-100ish defence stats determined how heavy will the raider lost.

Because of buildings defence stats are in a same scale of skill points, so it is nature to bring them linked. If it is true, then one with a high defence skill points would give attackers great lost of units. Same applies on the other hand, if one has a high attack skill points, he could penetrate defenders defence skill points, so he wouldn't loos much units.

My two accounts can give an example. My old account has little attack skill points, I was complaining about casualties when I playing him. But my new account has put a great amount of attack points, and I merely lost units with an 376 size army.

[P4TR1C14N]

I appreciate this post and second it completely.

To digitalwalker and others, I think you're waisting energy in trying to analyse what is going wrong. It's clear the PvP is broken and seriously broken. Enough examples do proof this.

I fear that the developers here maybe have created a nice spagetti code and brake constantly stuff by fixing something else for the PvP. Or maybe they want it exactly to be like this and they opt for the silly few that get frustrated and keep investing money to keep strong. Maybe that's more worth then the load of players stopping with this game.

In the end, we can guess as much as we want. For now (and since MONTHS now), the game has become a very disappointing game and boring game and i'm sure a lot of you will think twice before spending any money in the future on games from Funzio.

It's disturbing to see a game with a lovely concept being destroyed by bad management and communication from the makers.

I wonder if Boomer even is allowed to react in this topic as community manager... :)

[digitalwalker]

I appreciate this post and second it completely.

To digitalwalker and others, I think you're waisting energy in trying to analyse what is going wrong. It's clear the PvP is broken and seriously broken. Enough examples do proof this.

I fear that the developers here maybe have created a nice spagetti code and brake constantly stuff by fixing something else for the PvP. Or maybe they want it exactly to be like this and they opt for the silly few that get frustrated and keep investing money to keep strong. Maybe that's more worth then the load of players stopping with this game.

In the end, we can guess as much as we want. For now (and since MONTHS now), the game has become a very disappointing game and boring game and i'm sure a lot of you will think twice before spending any money in the future on games from Funzio.

It's disturbing to see a game with a lovely concept being destroyed by bad management and communication from the makers.

I wonder if Boomer even is allowed to react in this topic as community manager... :)

I respect ur feeling on the broken pvp system.

However, We could find a general pattern of how does it work, and still be able to benefit from doing pvp, I have accumulated a huge amount(hundureds of millions) of cash by doing pvp in a very short time. So "broken" or not broken are still arguing in my mind.

Different players may have different attitudes to the game, and i personally more interested in figure out how does the game work and then apply to my characters, the proud of it makes me to keep playing the game. I am enjoying myself while "wasting" energy on analyzing the "broken" pvp system. It will be not fun at all when everything is perfect and understood.

[JMC]

The higher level you are, the more broken the game is. I have been putting skill points in attack for the past 10 lrvels and have not noticed any difference in casualties.

The reason your low level player experiences less losses is because he is low level with few units fighting people that you easily overpower. On some people i can get zero casualties about 50% of the time but thats only on 2 or 3 people and they are a lot weaker than me. Since you have less units im going to guess you casualty rate is like half of mine and you can experience no losses almost everytime against the people you are fighting.

Dropping allies isnt an option in high levels though. Those guys get attacked constantly every two hours. Some people at my level are closing in on 10000 losses. With a max of 10 losses every two hours, thats 120 losses a day. 3600 losses a month. These guys have been getting constantly attacked every 2 hours for almost 3 months.

[P4TR1C14N]

@digitalwalker: It's an accomplishment if you acquire that amount of cash by PvP after deducting your costs for lost units.

I think JMC's last post best reflects what i try to say.

I'm not that high in level (73), but i feel clearly how messed up PvP is. Even if I attack easy targets, i have considerable losses. It's not always the biggest losses, but regularly you lose units that just should be lost when you base yourself on the units you bring into battle.

I tried lots of strategies, but not one did lead to an acceptable loss level over time. All were not balanced. When you take into account then that decided to keep playing for free, you can understand hopefully that the game becomes quite ridiculous as really every dollar needs to be invested in just filling up your units again by getting attacked or attacking and winning.

But if you guys find a solution, i'll be happy to apply it hehe.

[nighthunter]

I don't believe anyone at higher level would be stupid enuf to put that kind of cash out of vault and I don't know why there were so many ppl doing that in the lower lvl, which is even more senseless


I m thinking of pvp is not broken, what is wrong is that that the maximum 300k attack payout is too little compare with the lost in high levels.

Curent casualty rate has already been minimized in quite a few way, but ppl still can not accept of losing units worth more than 300k. That's y people complaining.

I think funzio may be better to work on how to encourage players keep theirs cash out, and at the same time cancel the 300k limit, so the whole pvp system will be activatived and cash will flow around players very quickly. The protection of weak players must be considered..etc

[nighthunter]

I agree completely.

The higher level you are, the more broken the game is. I have been putting skill points in attack for the past 10 lrvels and have not noticed any difference in casualties.

The reason your low level player experiences less losses is because he is low level with few units fighting people that you easily overpower. On some people i can get zero casualties about 50% of the time but thats only on 2 or 3 people and they are a lot weaker than me. Since you have less units im going to guess you casualty rate is like half of mine and you can experience no losses almost everytime against the people you are fighting.

Dropping allies isnt an option in high levels though. Those guys get attacked constantly every two hours. Some people at my level are closing in on 10000 losses. With a max of 10 losses every two hours, thats 120 losses a day. 3600 losses a month. These guys have been getting constantly attacked every 2 hours for almost 3 months.

[Agent Orange]

@JMC and Agent:

I have a thought which has been in my mind for quite a long time, I would like to hear some opinions from you two, thx.

I was thinking of the skill points play the vital role on units casualty.

Agent u did pointed out in another thread that raiding defence buildings or protected buildings will result in a great loss of units, I agree totally with u as I experience the same. By noting that every buildings have defence stats in interval of 0-100ish which is exactly in the same scale of our skill points, and we knew raid a low level low defence money building mostly gives zero loss of units, but when raid buildings have high defence stats, usually will lost a lot. So theirs 0-100ish defence stats determined how heavy will the raider lost.

Because of buildings defence stats are in a same scale of skill points, so it is nature to bring them linked. If it is true, then one with a high defence skill points would give attackers great lost of units. Same applies on the other hand, if one has a high attack skill points, he could penetrate defenders defence skill points, so he wouldn't loos much units.

My two accounts can give an example. My old account has little attack skill points, I was complaining about casualties when I playing him. But my new account has put a great amount of attack points, and I merely lost units with an 376 size army.

Yes I've suspected that skill points play a role and CC Mark even acknowledged this a few months ago in another thread but the devs will not divulge the specs.

Same with my defensive buildings which might not win raids but should be taking a real bite out of attacking forces but without being able to see the opponents stats I can only guess or go by the posts on my wall one of which mentioned that they were surprised when I took out their air units even though they were winning. Granted I bought units to target air and sea units specifically though since then have also bought units to target everything.

I took over my brothers bases the other day as they have given up on the game so I'm now looking at 4 players and in all cases I find PvP losses high. As JMC says what you see may be a lot different than what we see in the high levels. I had thought you were a much lower level player.

My original player is now L 123 with over 900 allies, though I only needed 500, SR made it to L80 with 230 allies, Ji L76 with 601 allies and my LLP s L 42 with 24 allies.

Until yesterday only my LLP had minimal losses when attacking and raiding, but that changed and now losses are creeping up there as well. I had suspected that having low ally count helped in two ways, kept you mixed in with other weak players and until recently kept losses down.

Now the game really is about money generation for the devs as gold units are the only lossless units available, loss rates on 1 and 2 million dollar units are unnaceptable so much so that I gave up on levelling up my factories to buy the most expensive units.

So I guess logically we are at the end of the line.

[ShawnBB]

So, what's up Agent Orange and JMC
You two still here discussing casualty?

I remember you guys told me that I will face the casualty trouble when I'm getting higher, right?like 2 and half month ago
So now I'm level 80 with 240 Allie. I have 40 seascout, 40 cruiser, 40 amphibious hovercraft,40 mine launcher, 30 valor units, 10 rocket soldier, 10 VTOL, around 250 mix troop. AND 500 light gunner, 500 Medic.(took up half of the army amount)

Here is my casualty report in the last few weeks that I was attacking for completing those operation valor missions and couple of juicy raids.
Total Lost: 2 rocket soldiers, 1 GIGN, 0 super hornet, 0 stealth frigate, 0 seascout, 0 cruiser, 0 amphibious hovercraft,0 VTOL, 0 mine launcher. Countless light gunners, couple of patrol boats and PvP drop units.

So what would be my casualty problem this time?

[JMC]

So, what's up Agent Orange and JMC
You two still here discussing casualty?

I remember you guys told me that I will face the casualty trouble when I'm getting higher, right?like 2 and half month ago
So now I'm level 80 with 240 Allie. I have 40 seascout, 40 cruiser, 40 amphibious hovercraft,40 mine launcher, 30 valor units, 10 rocket soldier, 10 VTOL, around 250 mix troop. AND 500 light gunner, 500 Medic.(took up half of the army amount)

Here is my casualty report in the last few weeks that I was attacking for completing those operation valor missions and couple of juicy raids.
Total Lost: 2 rocket soldiers, 1 GIGN, 0 super hornet, 0 stealth frigate, 0 seascout, 0 cruiser, 0 amphibious hovercraft,0 VTOL, 0 mine launcher. Countless light gunners, couple of patrol boats and PvP drop units.

So what would be my casualty problem this time?

You're still bringing only like 250 units that would be even worth noting if they died. If my army consisted of 1500 light gunners and 500 decent units im sure my losses would drop, but all my strength would be gone and i'd be attacked and raided constantly. Get into the top tier for more than a day and then try stay alive with that army. You keep getting lucky with them changing the rivals list.

[JMC]

When you take into account then that decided to keep playing for free, you can understand hopefully that the game becomes quite ridiculous as really every dollar needs to be invested in just filling up your units again by getting attacked or attacking and winning.

Yeah, when im regularly attacking, i can barely upgrade one building, forget about building a new one or expanding. I bring in a loss if im attacking and i replace every unit i lose. If i stop attacking for a couple days i bring in like 5-7mil a day off my income and missions.

This is all attacking people with always under 10K defence and usually under 7K defence. Also got a few targets with 1 defence total or under 2000. I have 42000 attack, my losses shouldnt be higher than my income against these players especially when my income is over 5mil a day.

Every so often some guys with hundreds of millions out will come along and i'll be able to clear them out, but other than that, its a huge loss when doing PvP. I made 10mil in a few hours the day i bought my nanotech, but i probably lost like 3mil of it doing the attacks, i just didn't replace the units. Lose tons of valor units during that as well. If you value valor units at a few hundred thousand each, i come out with huge losses even when earning 300K per attack.

[digitalwalker]

Thank you for responsing. And I am playing an account at lvl 56 with about 100allies most of the time, when I doing pvp, it always convince myself that I need a great unit density and attack skill points and looking for guys did a lot of missions or won a lot of fights. I do lost units like 1.2 or1.7m every now and then, but my overall gain is still much higher than the lost, so I am quite happy with my current casualty.

It will probably be changed at higher level as you two said, and I just hope it will not that bad in the way that I will only be able to do PVE and hide my cash etc..

[digitalwalker]

I don't believe anyone at higher level would be stupid enuf to put that kind of cash out of vault and I don't know why there were so many ppl doing that in the lower lvl, which is even more senseless

Well, at high level, more and more people start to upgrade or build buildings require cash more than 10m which is very often, so they r willing to take the risk to open theirs cash.

At very low level(below 40), the maximum drop out cash when be attacked are limited, so it is a nature protection, pretty save to left it open.

Me, personally, did twice kept 130m cash for weeks, I was attacked crzily every day, but no one won, and I treated my opened cash as a trap which constant bring more cash from those attackers. And also they left a foot print on my feed list which I could justify which one may holding large amount of cash, then they become my cash cow.

[nighthunter]

your def seem decent but you attack is awfully low...can you really find anyone to attack with these troops?


So, what's up Agent Orange and JMC
You two still here discussing casualty?

I remember you guys told me that I will face the casualty trouble when I'm getting higher, right?like 2 and half month ago
So now I'm level 80 with 240 Allie. I have 40 seascout, 40 cruiser, 40 amphibious hovercraft,40 mine launcher, 30 valor units, 10 rocket soldier, 10 VTOL, around 250 mix troop. AND 500 light gunner, 500 Medic.(took up half of the army amount)

Here is my casualty report in the last few weeks that I was attacking for completing those operation valor missions and couple of juicy raids.
Total Lost: 2 rocket soldiers, 1 GIGN, 0 super hornet, 0 stealth frigate, 0 seascout, 0 cruiser, 0 amphibious hovercraft,0 VTOL, 0 mine launcher. Countless light gunners, couple of patrol boats and PvP drop units.

So what would be my casualty problem this time?

[nighthunter]

No one is safe except heavy gold buyers at higher lvl, if you got attacked (and loss) at least once a day, you know you can't put money out of vault for more than 24 hours. isn't that simple?



Well, at high level, more and more people start to upgrade or build buildings require cash more than 10m which is very often, so they r willing to take the risk to open theirs cash.

At very low level(below 40), the maximum drop out cash when be attacked are limited, so it is a nature protection, pretty save to left it open.

Me, personally, did twice kept 130m cash for weeks, I was attacked crzily every day, but no one won, and I treated my opened cash as a trap which constant bring more cash from those attackers. And also they left a foot print on my feed list which I could justify which one may holding large amount of cash, then they become my cash cow.

[ShawnBB]

You're still bringing only like 250 units that would be even worth noting if they died. If my army consisted of 1500 light gunners and 500 decent units im sure my losses would drop, but all my strength would be gone and i'd be attacked and raided constantly. Get into the top tier for more than a day and then try stay alive with that army. You keep getting lucky with them changing the rivals list.

Great, looks like you agreed with the argument that there could be a casualty solution in MW, it's just people don't like to do that because it will reduce their army density.

And isn't that actually a perfect way to balance the game? Cost the highers and help the weaks.
I'm having an average 13 defense per cash unit with lots of defense points.
And will gradually bring in valor units little by little to instant jump up the attack stats in order to beat the bottom campers or afks around me.

I only lose to medium gold spenders and above right now as I checked my news record. Haven't seen any great aggressive Russia or UK free player yet. If someday I was attacked a lot by free valor players, then I will buy M270 to raise defense density up to a point that could back those free player off.

As long as you are a free player, the survive rule is very simple at any level,any Allie range: collect and vault, keep an enough defense density to fend off other free players.
There is always a reason for being "lucky" in a non-lucky game, dude.

[digitalwalker]

Hello bb:) how u doing.have u checked the event?

[JMC]

Great, looks like you agreed with the argument that there could be a casualty solution in MW, it's just people don't like to do that because it will reduce their army density.

And isn't that actually a perfect way to balance the game? Cost the highers and help the weaks.
I'm having an average 13 defense per cash unit with lots of defense points.
And will gradually bring in valor units little by little to instant jump up the attack stats in order to beat the bottom campers or afks around me.

I only lose to medium gold spenders and above right now as I checked my news record. Haven't seen any great aggressive Russia or UK free player yet. If someday I was attacked a lot by free valor players, then I will buy M270 to raise defense density up to a point that could back those free player off.

As long as you are a free player, the survive rule is very simple at any level,any Allie range: collect and vault, keep an enough defense density to fend off other free players.
There is always a reason for being "lucky" in a non-lucky game, dude.

You can't reduce your army density without killing off all your units, which is obviously not a good solution.

Also don't know what you mean theres a reason for you being lucky? You just got into the top tier twice, posted on my wall and the next day they changed the rivals list. That's funzio's doing, has nothing to do with your strategy unless they're telling you when they plan to change the lists (which i doubt).

[Agent Orange]

Well I looked at Shawn's stats, L80, 238 allies. But wonder if he's really qualified to make those statements based on only 1967 fights won and 1583 fights lost. Also has an extremely low attack score for this level at 4805 but an above average defense score of 11006. The only thing I notice besides a below average attack score is a real cornicopia of units and that might fit into one theory I saw which involved the game picking your losses based on the quantity of high quality units you owned. And if that is the case the it means again that the game has some serious flaws.

JMC and I are pulling from a considerably larger amount of data, my fights won is 20,693 with 1454 lost. My L80 brother has 2189 fights won and 890 fights lost. So I have a pretty decent amount of data to consider and I think I can add another 5,000 fights won with Ji's and my LLP.

[Col.34w]

Great thread, BUT I am disappointed that there still is not one single response from Funzio. I cannot understand the logic in it. Ram asked politely, delicately and most thoughtfully and still nothing. I guess we have our answer. I was hoping to level up to whale territory, but not sure if I can get there from here...

[Ramshutu]

Great thread, BUT I am disappointed that there still is not one single response from Funzio. I cannot understand the logic in it. Ram asked politely, delicately and most thoughtfully and still nothing. I guess we have our answer. I was hoping to level up to whale territory, but not sure if I can get there from here...

I would give them the benefit of the doubt here, they have just been in the middle of a major new release. Things can get a bit crazy when that happens. Although some comment would be nice :)

[Agent Orange]

Have a funny feeling the Armed Infirmary (10 titanium bars) is the solution...

[Ramshutu]

Have a funny feeling the Armed Infirmary (10 titanium bars) is the solution...

I don't think this will fix things. Even if the casualty rate were reduced by 50%, I think it would be too high, it's the way they're calculated that is the problem.

[Aidan]

Put it this way, if they fix the casualty rate, wud people even bother to get the armed infirmary? People wud try bt they wont go overboard wif spending gold on it just to get 20% lower casualty.

[Acheron]

I'm only low level, but it seems to me like the answer is having super hornets and jet fighters as your attacking army, and super hornets and military ambulances as your defence. Should have enough attack, and it would cost hardly any $$$ per attack making it quite profitable. Defence should be pretty decent too. Maybe throw in some nice units from farming a map to improve it even more. Maybe using rangers instead of jet fighters will allow you to have more super hornets because of the meat shield effect. On the other hand if stealth frigates have a lower casualty rate than super hornets (I bet they do) then you might end up with better attack with those.

[Dillinja]

Put it this way, if they fix the casualty rate, wud people even bother to get the armed infirmary? People wud try bt they wont go overboard wif spending gold on it just to get 20% lower casualty.
Bang on Aidan, from a business perspective, why should Funzio fix the PVP? It makes no sense for them aslong as people are getting peeved with the system and end up buying gold units to play the game.
Also Modern War is in the top 10 grossing games on Itunes, so why should they 'fix' it.
Like I said earlier I think it's time we accepted the game for what it is and play accordingly.
There will be those who will be hell bent on spending as much as possible in order to compete and there will be others who will free play and still compete upto a point. To each their own but let's just accept that PVP isn't going to be fixed the way we want it to be

[Acheron]

I have a feeling they are not replying because they feel there is nothing to fix, and they don't really want to tell you the best strategy for playing the game. If you want indestructible units go and play crime city. You'll see its not as awesome as you think it is, I think this game is better.

I guess once your income is so high that you're not interested in making a profitable attack army, then it becomes a game of who has the biggest attack score, and you start stockpiling the railgun destroyers or whatever the best unit is. I suppose at this point you just have to realise that yes, there is no point attacking anymore, except maybe for a non profit related reason.

[War Priest]

I have a feeling they are not replying because they feel there is nothing to fix, and they don't really want to tell you the best strategy for playing the game. If you want indestructible units go and play crime city. You'll see its not as awesome as you think it is, I think this game is better.

I guess once your income is so high that you're not interested in making a profitable attack army, then it becomes a game of who has the biggest attack score, and you start stockpiling the railgun destroyers or whatever the best unit is. I suppose at this point you just have to realise that yes, there is no point attacking anymore, except maybe for a non profit related reason.

I was thinking that last night. I'm not effected by the casualty rate, so I don't have any problems in that area, but I was thinking how do players even know if there is a casualty rate problem? I mean it could be designed like that on purpose. That could be the way Funzio wants it.

[mickymacirl]

I'm new to the game and have found that after level 50 (I got in a week or so) I had about 2400 wins with about 115 loses.

Now since I'm level 54, I've noticed I fail about 80% in straight out attack and about 40% when raiding. I've learn't to make sure I have enough desert leaders etc. before all out attacking.

Granted, my base is very very small compared to others of my level, but a lot of the time I attack lower levels who attack me.

Currently I've about 5700 att and 6000 def (used to be close to 7400 on both just before I hit level 50) I'm losing so many units now it's not possible for me to attack without spending 6 hours re-getting desert leaders etc.

I could spend more money on gold (be nice to get some irish units since I'm irish :P) but certainly don't feel like it would be worth it the way it is currently.

Maybe a bit off topic, but is it possible to buy old limited gold units like the bismark by selecting another players unit and clicking buy?

[vitus79]

I was thinking that last night. I'm not effected by the casualty rate, so I don't have any problems in that area, but I was thinking how do players even know if there is a casualty rate problem? I mean it could be designed like that on purpose. That could be the way Funzio wants it.

in the beginning it was more balanced, no casualties at all if ur attack have doubled the enemies defence.
with the changes of unit buildings locked to levels, like dry dock to lvl50, casualty rate went up to roof and still is compared to when i started to play. i mean with my 22k attack, shouldnt use 3 units in a fight vs a guy 5k attack, losing superhornets and 150k tanks is nothing what u would expect if u fight such a weaker enemy.
but after all the moan they didnt change a thing but made new profits as they realize ppl gettin addicted to game and purchasings. look at the event, 20% less casualties award.. it just fits my theory.

i have no problem of loosing units at the end of my food chain vs outnumbered/powered enemies but comon, hornets on 1/4 my stats and half of the troops im bringing in and no gold units at all? i did spend alot alrdy and start to regret it, even trapped me on getting a vault to reach ten bars within the timer, coz i still love their games and have put too much time and money in to just quit.. but all the changes they do make me feel like a funzio laboratory animal. a paying beta tester, dreams come true to funzio :P

[War Priest]

in the beginning it was more balanced, no casualties at all if ur attack have doubled the enemies defence.
with the changes of unit buildings locked to levels, like dry dock to lvl50, casualty rate went up to roof and still is compared to when i started to play. i mean with my 22k attack, shouldnt use 3 units in a fight vs a guy 5k attack, losing superhornets and 150k tanks is nothing what u would expect if u fight such a weaker enemy.
but after all the moan they didnt change a thing but made new profits as they realize ppl gettin addicted to game and purchasings. look at the event, 20% less casualties award.. it just fits my theory.

i have no problem of loosing units at the end of my food chain vs outnumbered/powered enemies but comon, hornets on 1/4 my stats and half of the troops im bringing in and no gold units at all? i did spend alot alrdy and start to regret it, even trapped me on getting a vault to reach ten bars within the timer, coz i still love their games and have put too much time and money in to just quit.. but all the changes they do make me feel like a funzio laboratory animal. a paying beta tester, dreams come true to funzio :P

Alright got it. Must be before my time. I have never experienced a high lost of units to a much lower stat player ever. Not even before I became a gold player. I don't really pay attention to these threads because this is not an issue I am conserned about. But thanks for clearing it up.

[L Fizzle]

Hi Everyone,

Apologies for the late response! I was at GDC the week before last and then I was sick most of last week. Let me talk to the development team and see if I can get some of these questions answered!

Hang tight!

Lauren

[War Priest]

Hi Everyone,

Apologies for the late response! I was at GDC the week before last and then I was sick most of last week. Let me talk to the development team and see if I can get some of these questions answered!

Hang tight!

Lauren

Glad your back and feeling better. Thanks for looking into it!

[L Fizzle]

1.) What is your intent for pvp? What are your criteria for judging whether it's. Balanced? It would help us a lot if we could understand what you want the system to do, or at least cushion the bow if you want it to work differently from what we expect.*

2.) What is the cause of this issue? By the nature of how long it has taken, its obvious that it isn't the case that someone had used 'I < 0' rather than 'I <= 0'. Understanding what has gone wrong would help us have more sympathy for you on why it is taking so long to fix!

3.) Realistically, when will it be resolved. I know the spectre of gantt charts and deadlines is always annoying, but it always help soothe equally annoying and cantankerous people like me!

4.) the above may not be possible, hopefully the appointment of a community manager may assist here, if we can't have the above, regular proactive feedback about how things are progressing is really important. *

Please don't take this post in anyway angry, or overly negative. Think of it like a hyperactive child bugging their dad about when he will fix their favourite bike! And if it seems like we're repeating ourselves with the same thing over and over game as if we're discussing M4A1's, it's just because of how serious this issue is.


Just talked with the dev team....it sounds like they're being extremely proactive in trying to improve things like PVP. They're testing some ideas and just starting to take a look at the results. I'm told that they're looking to get the improvements rolled out to you guys shortly.

Hope that at least helps!

Fizz

[Agent Orange]

Well I've been spending a bit of time looking at ShaunBB and War Priests bases and stats since one of my brothers is in their level. They slot in at the higher end of the stats for players in that grouping. And this seems to be the problem with trying to compare and make observations on things like loss rates.

My LLP is now at L49 and they are experiencing quite the jump in losses compared to when they were in the 30's. In terms of the rest of their group they fit in at the high end of defense and pretty much in the middle in terms of attack. There is quite a range of scores for players in this group which ranges from under 1000 a/d to over 3000 a/d with most coming in somewhere in between these points. The number of allies in this group is below average which might be a factor that we haven't looked into. Those at the high end of the attack scores have to have high value or gold units since they need to maintain a higher than normal average since they are not bringing in as many units to battle since they are under in their ally count.

War and Shaun are playing at the high end of a below average group of players by keeping their ally counts lower than the optimum and that could be why they are doing ok. Granted when I have some time I will have to test a theory I have on them and see if there are vulnerabilities in their strategies.

[War Priest]

Wish I would of known. Would of cleaned house a little bit. =)

[L Fizzle]

Additionally....

We're actively looking into the PVP issue and our dev team is testing various solutions. We are definitely paying attention to players at level 100+ and we're testing both small changes and major changes. Given that PVP affects everyone we're trying our best to balance the game. Please be patient with us, know that we're actively reading/monitoring/and testing. :)

[JMC]

Finally some responses, good to know that you're actually working on the PvP still. It's been over 2 months now since it messed up i think, what's up with such a long time to fix it? The whole time starting from 2 days after the casualties jumped, we've been told here and there that they are nearly finished and in testing stages, but this testing stage never seems to end.

[kuku]

lol this is a standard text from funzio, postet from other dev from funzio in other topic.