All your thoughts on current PvP environment go here, includes the new update

[GhostShot]

Ok, first of all, like to say this new PvP update looks like a great direction and fosters a more competitive gameplay than the 'hunker down and level up slowly' mentality of yore. However, it's a beta at best.

Some issues I have with it are:
1) rewards are insulting; not sufficient gold to make it worthwhile for players who buy gold anyways, and for free players, you can't do anything with the amount achievable. The money and valor? I can rack up a lot more than the rewards would give out just going about my regular business collecting and harvesting (raiding).

Suggested solution: better rewards or more tiers to balance it out. In fact, yeah, more tiers.

2) now EVERYONE and their cousins are fighting. This in of itself isn't a bad thing (kinda cool, actually, moves the game from a passive to more active multiplayer game). The indirect result of this? 90% of my 'Rivals' list comes up as 'Player is too weak to fight'. This is like playing multiplayer on console, and you're stuck in the lobby for an hour waiting for the game to start. This might not affect all of you, but when you're fighting with ~400 to 500 allies, finding one you can attack is frustrating at best.

Suggested solution: if a player is 'too weak to fight', they shouldn't show up on my 'Rivals' list. change the refresh parameters.

3) Towards the higher levels, players become more dependent on valor than cash in growing their armies. Some place less emphasis on collecting and more on PvP or harvesting (raiding) for/supplement their income. Venal Fighter is nice, but you can get a lot more Super Hornets in a single day if you're aggressive enough. Missions that give Valor as rewards become crucial: when you run out, all you have are the level-related mission and Force Degradation. The former gives less than 1000 valor while the latter, when capped, gives 2000, but requires the enemy to be allied 499~500. End result? People prune their allies to less than 499. I've seen a lot of my rivals drop from 500 to 498 and below over the last few days. This makes mission completion more difficult especially when you couple the problem with the 'too weak to fight' crap. This results in grindingly slow progress.

Suggested solution: make the allies range bigger (eg. 470 and up) for the final force degradation mission, so people have to choose between a better ATK/DEF stat or be targeted by others for valor.

4) There's more incentive to attack than defend - bear with me here, the game rewards aggressive players. Sure you can develop a high DEF and pick and choose who you fight, but at the end of the day, only thing that a low DEF does is make you more likely to be raided or hurt your win/loss ratio, which is an abstract that doesn't hurt you directly (maybe your feelings, but boohoo). If being raided is a problem, then raid others to make up for it. The name of the game is MODERN WAR, not MODERN TURTLE. Anyways, this game favors fighters, which isn't a bad thing, but this serves to exacerbate the other problems outlined above.

Suggested solution: make defending more practical. Let us see what units get taken to a defensive battle the same way we can see the ones in our attacks. balance the combat out by making casualty less likely on defense than in offense.

Your ideas on PvP??

[Tctiger]

It is another part of game and something else to aim for , I'm not sure how long it will take me to get the 19m points but is good to get the couple of big money rewards to save selling buildings at least a couple of times for big upgrades , land or nano if you can time it right. I don't want to camp but looks like is the only way to have a chance to survive past 100 unless I want a 15k def up against a 250k AT&T , I wonder how many people give up when they get to higher level if they haven't camped?

[JMC]

Today i have dropped 500 defence stat and 1000 attack stat. Just from getting attacked by people with the no casualty glitch or gold players. Casualty rates are way up.

PvP rank should mean more than unlocking a unit and getting a little prize. Higher PvP rank should net you more battle points as well as more valor/exp per attack.

I haven't been able to find a reasonable target who isn't already dead in 2 days. And now i can't even find anyone under 40K defence that isnt already dead.

[Tctiger]

Seems like the unit casulties Maybe linked to the money you receive just like a fruit machine , they could lessen the casulties so you always gain more than you lose , or link your income you have and the money from raids or attacks to the unit casualties so you have enough comming in to replace army and earn a bit more as it does seem to even out a lot . Also could group rivals on AT&T and def stats to make fights a little more even , I mean 250k army v 5,10,20k isn't a battle it's a massacre ! Someone call the un !

[Tctiger]

Yea they could fix the cheating clutches at the same time!

[Tctiger]

I think the points you recieve do go up , first lot I was getting 30 points second lot after ranking up now getting 60 points a raid .

[GhostShot]

Today i have dropped 500 defence stat and 1000 attack stat. Just from getting attacked by people with the no casualty glitch or gold players. Casualty rates are way up.

PvP rank should mean more than unlocking a unit and getting a little prize. Higher PvP rank should net you more battle points as well as more valor/exp per attack.

I haven't been able to find a reasonable target who isn't already dead in 2 days. And now i can't even find anyone under 40K defence that isnt already dead.


You know, maybe unlockable abilities like in AD&D (or perks in CoD for all you kids) that you can gain as you level up would be better than one time rewards. I'm thinking things like:

Permanent 5% reduction on build times
Permanent 5% reduction on casualty
Permanent 5% increase in valor gained
Make a single building immune/invisible to raid for one day
Change money to gold (i.e. 1 mil = 1 gold)
See battle outcome likelihood in percentage
Free VIP status for a duration
Free invulnerable unit
Boost building-like abilities
Invisible to appearing on people's 'Rivals' list for a duration
etc. etc.

Specific abilities unlocked at a certain level, or maybe like the skill points, you get to purchase them by accruing points by winning PvP matches.

What do you guys think?

[Led]

They're going to have to address the fact that players that have exhausted their valor missions will never be able to buy the higher valor units. No one in my stats has leveled (78) up from private very discouraging.

[g8rlawyer]

I'm enjoying the new rankings for pvp. I'd like to see consumptions rates decline as pvp experience increases.

[What?]

Funzio changed the minimum level higher players can attack to about 100 (used to be 90). Now all the lvl 90 players who have 500 or more allies, but only showed as 450-495 are no longer able to be attacked. This reduced the amount of targets 10 fold making finding valor targets next to impossible. Those that are at 499 or more allies at lvl 100+ have usually already been attacked by someone else due to the scarcity of these said players.

One big concern about the points system is the amount it takes to reach special ops and complete it. I average about 90 points per raid and 19,000,000 points is about 210,000 attacks. I consider myself fairly active and since November have accumulated about 20,000 attacks and raids combined. With these 20,000 attacks I can estimate if this trend continues I will reach 19,000,000 points in about 5 years. 5 years is a crap load of time and I can't even guess where I will be next year let alone in 5. Funzio needs to make this objective a little more obtainable or most people won't even bother. I don't mean instant gratification, but even the biggest attackers in this game have nowhere close to 200,000 attacks. I calculated in another thread if you did nothing but attack all day everyday so your stamina was always being used it would still take 1.2 years with an attack every three minutes 24/7/365. That is just crazy.

[GhostShot]

Funzio changed the minimum level higher players can attack to about 100 (used to be 90). Now all the lvl 90 players who have 500 or more allies, but only showed as 450-495 are no longer able to be attacked. This reduced the amount of targets 10 fold making finding valor targets next to impossible. Those that are at 499 or more allies at lvl 100+ have usually already been attacked by someone else due to the scarcity of these said players.

One big concern about the points system is the amount it takes to reach special ops and complete it. I average about 90 points per raid and 19,000,000 points is about 210,000 attacks. I consider myself fairly active and since November have accumulated about 20,000 attacks and raids combined. With these 20,000 attacks I can estimate if this trend continues I will reach 19,000,000 points in about 5 years. 5 years is a crap load of time and I can't even guess where I will be next year let alone in 5. Funzio needs to make this objective a little more obtainable or most people won't even bother. I don't mean instant gratification, but even the biggest attackers in this game have nowhere close to 200,000 attacks. I calculated in another thread if you did nothing but attack all day everyday so your stamina was always being used it would still take 1.2 years with an attack every three minutes 24/7/365. That is just crazy.

HOLY CRAP.

This is a beta, at best. Again, break the levels down into more tiers each with its own permanent + cash/valor rewards and unlockables that'll atleast make things enjoyable.

[JMC]

Well actually the battle point rewards go far above 90 per attack. You have to be willing to trade off all your units with the casualty rate against stronger opponents though. A gold player could obtain special ops, and there are a couple with around 100K attacks i believe.

[Warfiend]

4) There's more incentive to attack than defend - bear with me here, the game rewards aggressive players. Sure you can develop a high DEF and pick and choose who you fight, but at the end of the day, only thing that a low DEF does is make you more likely to be raided or hurt your win/loss ratio, which is an abstract that doesn't hurt you directly

Given the cost of building upgrades, writing off building defense to avoid being raided as a trivial thing seems kinda silly. Having a defense that keeps you from being raided and attacked successfully is a HUGE advantage in this game. Of course I'm talking about the levels before the whale territory.

For example, I hit some poor schmuck today for over a million, the second day in a row I hit that guy for over a million. If he dropped that money as he got it into better defensive units(which he is capable of buying going by the level of his unit buildings), he'd be strong enough to keep me from successfully attacking him in a week and half, maybe two weeks. In the mean time, I wouldn't bother with him because he wouldn't have the money sitting there. From that point on, he'd be fairly safe saving up his money for whatever he was saving it for. Just a little time to build defense would give him a huge strategic advantage in the game over those who don't.

Your answer for him would seem to be 'go steal it from someone else', but there's two problems with that. 1) You can't bank on being able to find cash cows that pay out like that whenever you need it and 2) attacking people means more casualties, so if you do get that money back, it will be with interest paid in the form of lost units that need replacing(unless you get lucky or you've got a golden army). This will really hurt if you went the route of building your forces on valor units.

Building a strong defense is a huge practical and strategic advantage in this game. I don't see how the new PVP stuff has changed that.


If being raided is a problem, then raid others to make up for it. The name of the game is MODERN WAR, not MODERN TURTLE.

Right, MODERN WAR, not primitive war. There are no modern military powers that sustain their forces on raiding other nations. Raiding to sustain your forces was a feature of primitive warfare. In modern times, nations build economies to sustain their war efforts. Those who don't always end up failing.

One of the things that attracted me to this game was that it clearly was not meant to be yet another non-stop fight fest for the ADD crowd. They took into account the realities of modern war, that modern war powers HAVE to build economies, HAVE to develop new technologies and that those things take time. They took that into account and blatantly implemented it into the game play. It's an element that if you ignore it, you will eventually be sorry for ignoring it.




Suggested solution: make defending more practical. Let us see what units get taken to a defensive battle the same way we can see the ones in our attacks. balance the combat out by making casualty less likely on defense than in offense.

I already experience exponentially less casualties in defense than I do in offense. I thought that was the way it was for everyone?

[Jhoemel]

I lost 1500k attack and 1k defense attacking, lost bunch of sh, se, and sf... Lots of cash units also

[SmiseekClaisk]

ñàéò ãàëà î äèåòàõ Äèåòà àöåòîí (http://otenheaphe.lhosting.info/art.php?n=95159) äèåòà äîêòîðà èîíîâà
Äèåòû è ïîõóäåíèå (http://chilldowncredin.zaghost.com/art.php?n=663852) ïîõóäåíèå ñ ïîìîùüþ óêñóñà ñíèæåíèå âåñà ñ ïîìîùüþ òîëîêíà
êàê áîðîòüñÿ ñ îæèðåíèåì Êðåìëåâñêàÿ äèåòàñûðíèêè (http://tupisucdo.3web.me/cft.php?c=5&p=3) çîëîòàÿ ñåðüãà ïîõóäàíèå
Äèåòà ñî ñïåðìîé (http://cumatibo.prophp.org/art.php?n=103043) îòðàæàåòñÿ äèåòà íà êà÷åñòâå ãîëîñà ñåðüãà òâåðü ïîõóäåíèå
àíèòà öîé . ïîõóäåíèå Ëó÷øèå âèòàìèíû ïðè äèåòàõ (http://intictefe.zaghost.com/cat.php?c=3&p=3) äèåòà èç îòðóáåé è êåôèðà
äèåòà êðåâåòêè âèøíè ïîõóäåíèå ïî ñîëîâüåâó
ñïîñîáû î÷èùåíèÿ îðãàíèçìà, ãîëîäàíèè, äèåòà äèåòà õóäååì ïðàâèëüíî Äîëèíîé äèåòà (http://vertflakurtrad.netfast.org/art.php?n=239541)
äèåòà íà ïåðèòîíåàëüíîì äèàëèçå ñíèæåíèå âåñà ñåðüãà
ïîõóäåíèå, ñðåäñòâà ïîõóäåíèÿ, ýôôåêòèâíûå äèåòû ìîÿ äèåòà Äèåòà çà ìåñÿö 20 êã (http://lediwelltitt.4sql.net/cat.php?c=4&p=3)
ïîõóäåíèå ïî çíàêó çîäèàêà êàê óáðàòü æèð ïîáîêàì

[What?]

Well actually the battle point rewards go far above 90 per attack. You have to be willing to trade off all your units with the casualty rate against stronger opponents though. A gold player could obtain special ops, and there are a couple with around 100K attacks i believe.

What was the most you got from an attack? How do you have 494986 points already? I've been attacking practically all day since this started and have only 45k points.

[JohnnyR]

What? Guessing stamina refills or he's picking high level dudes off....

[Tctiger]

I was hoping the battle points you get keep going up so that the targets are not years away !

[Jhoemel]

I only have 25k points man, how did u do it?

[Hassleham]

ñàéò ãàëà î äèåòàõ Äèåòà àöåòîí (http://otenheaphe.lhosting.info/art.php?n=95159) äèåòà äîêòîðà èîíîâà
äèåòà êðåâåòêè âèøíè ïîõóäåíèå ïî ñîëîâüåâó
ñïîñîáû î÷èùåíèÿ îðãàíèçìà, ãîëîäàíèè, äèåòà äèåòà õóäååì ïðàâèëüíî [url=http://vertflakurtrad.netfast.org/art.php?n=239


A valid point.

I get 60 points maximum from fights now and I've tried several different numbers of allies and looked fr stronger targets, targets with lots of wins etc.. Nothing works!

[GhostShot]

Warfiend, I'm talking about whale territory, I don't know what level you are or what it's like with your gaming experience, but I steamroll over people with tons of railguns, minefields and detention facilities, and can use the enemy stats that I can see (as opposed to the covert DEF bonus that defensive buildings give) as guideline as to whether or not I can attack or raid.

That said, casualty rate isn't really a problem for me, but again, from what I'm reading, there seems to be a huge variance in the rate amongst players. I'm reading about people losing 1k in ATK/DEF overnight and that is crazy. Maybe this game doesn't have a universal (global) parameters governing everybody's outcomes, but different players 'get different treatment' according to level, when they started playing, allies, whim of funzio, whatever.

The information you're giving me, makes me wonder if we're all on the same page. Clearly for me, high level, high allies whale territory with PvP missions maxed out, the information I gave on my previous posts reflect that.

That said, Warfiend, if the poor schmucks (what would we do without them, eh?) that you prey on in raiding are leaving high output cash buildings uncollected, that's on them. If they want to invest in defensive buildings (which I wouldn't, I'd just get more high DEF units) that's fine, but it's more a problem or coordinating and being vigilant on the cash buildings. EVERYONE gets raided, regardless of how good your DEF is. A high DEF, of course, will thwart the really weak raiders. And if your stats are so weak that you can't go around raiding or attacking, the problem isn't the lack of defensive buildings...

Your comment on Modern War/Turtle... There are people who sustain their whole income on PvP, and they do surprisingly well. One guy I saw has no income buildings. Nada. He raids all the time, puts valor and money all into units. Kinda cool actually. I do both raid and take income, seems like the sane road to me.

...and I find your analysis of modern/primitive war hilarious.

But regardless, Warfiend, we should probably concentrate on the different circumstances players face, because everyone seems to have different experiences in PvP.

BPs I get range from 90 to 150.

[Jhoemel]

A valid point.

I get 60 points maximum from fights now and I've tried several different numbers of allies and looked fr stronger targets, targets with lots of wins etc.. Nothing works!

I get 120 points max, thats when the defense is less than 10k difference from my attack

[GhostShot]

I get 120 points max, thats when the defense is less than 10k difference from my attack

Yeah, it scales with levels (?) and DEF stats. When I fight people with 50k DEF, its about 150 BP. If it's 30~40k, it's about 100 BP.

[mickymacirl]

Working out for me great since I was already a PVP player, all that's suffering is my base at the moment but my vault is almost at 10m so I'm not too worried.

Using cash units to replace my loses, which are, far far worse than before the update.

[Sepi]

I also agree on high casualty rates. I was first very hyped about this new update, but as people's calculations has prowed, it's not very tempting to try advance in Ranks as Battle Point per fight are somewhat low and it takes literally years to get to the final rank. But still, overall I like it as it spices PvP. :)

I have Response Unit and level 4 Infirmary, and losses are 2-3 units even against opponents 10-15K lower defence than my attack. And oddly I'm losing MLRS's, Super Hornets and Leopards, only few casualties on Bradleys which are notoriously quick to die as we all know. ;)

[Ratronicus]

At this point, after reading all kind of stuff about the new update, I decided to not get the new update installed. The reasons is that currently my battle losses in pvp are extremely low (approx 1 unit in 40-50 pvp battles) and by installing the update I'm sure this will change.
I am a very active player and I quite enjoy the fact my casualty rates are low. I currently have in excess of 80k in valour and I,m buying SH and SF as a way of incresing my A/D which are currently at 24k with 230 allies. By getting the update all I gain are 5 strong unit that will give me approx 1k in A/D which I easily can get at any time.

Any thoughts that will change my mind?

Ratronicus

[Jhoemel]

I also agree on high casualty rates. I was first very hyped about this new update, but as people's calculations has prowed, it's not very tempting to try advance in Ranks as Battle Point per fight are somewhat low and it takes literally years to get to the final rank. But still, overall I like it as it spices PvP. :)

I have Response Unit and level 4 Infirmary, and losses are 2-3 units even against opponents 10-15K lower defence than my attack. And oddly I'm losing MLRS's, Super Hornets and Leopards, only few casualties on Bradleys which are notoriously quick to die as we all know. ;)


I agree about the casualty rate, high valor units and expensive cash units are the first one to die

[GhostShot]

idk how the casualty rate in the new update is defined, because I hardly lose any units, and i'm doing about 20~30 attacks per hour. my enemies are all +/- 1000's in ATK/DEF, not 10k+. yeah, my losses are comparable to yours, ratronicus, and that's after the update.

[Ratronicus]

How were they b4 update?

[GhostShot]

same, really.

[GhostShot]

ba-bump

at 97K about 80% into Lieutenant rank.

quick note, you don't get the reward associated with the rank until you go to the next rank. kind of counter intuitive.

i keep getting the "next rank achieved" half way into the rank after the one i achieved. is this a recurring problem for all?

still can't see anybodyelse's rank.

[manbeast]

my "thoughts"-it sucks. very disappointed.

time to pitch my tent and camp

[mickymacirl]

I'm losing a fair number of Valor units now, I think maybe the SH etc will be lost because of the new valor units.

I've 19 Hardened Marines and none have died yet! Yet I've lost about 40 SH not including the cash meat units in about 250 attacks.

[Thunder Child]

I'm losing a fair number of Valor units now, I think maybe the SH etc will be lost because of the new valor units.I've 19 Hardened Marines and none have died yet! Yet I've lost about 40 SH not including the cash meat units in about 250 attacks.I guess you're not losing SF though? Have a theory that UK flags are losing a lot of their ace valor unit (SF) and Russian flags are being hit on SH....

[cheiz]

Hi TC: I have the impression SH loss dropped. I'm Russia
Lost one in the last 100 attacks

[mickymacirl]

Well I'm Russia and lately my valor units aren't equal so maybe that's it!

[Agent Orange]

They're going to have to address the fact that players that have exhausted their valor missions will never be able to buy the higher valor units. No one in my stats has leveled (78) up from private very discouraging.

Or is this a glitch with the rivals list? I see the same thing for players over L100.

[Agent Orange]

ba-bump

at 97K about 80% into Lieutenant rank.

quick note, you don't get the reward associated with the rank until you go to the next rank. kind of counter intuitive.

i keep getting the "next rank achieved" half way into the rank after the one i achieved. is this a recurring problem for all?

still can't see anybodyelse's rank.

Don't get the ranking up glitch you see I only get the notice I completed the rank when I jump to the next. Am also on Lt but have yet to anyone in my rivals listvhigher than pvt.

[Agent Orange]

Warfiend, I'm talking about whale territory, I don't know what level you are or what it's like with your gaming experience, but I steamroll over people with tons of railguns, minefields and detention facilities, and can use the enemy stats that I can see (as opposed to the covert DEF bonus that defensive buildings give) as guideline as to whether or not I can attack or raid.

That said, casualty rate isn't really a problem for me, but again, from what I'm reading, there seems to be a huge variance in the rate amongst players. I'm reading about people losing 1k in ATK/DEF overnight and that is crazy. Maybe this game doesn't have a universal (global) parameters governing everybody's outcomes, but different players 'get different treatment' according to level, when they started playing, allies, whim of funzio, whatever.

The information you're giving me, makes me wonder if we're all on the same page. Clearly for me, high level, high allies whale territory with PvP missions maxed out, the information I gave on my previous posts reflect that.

That said, Warfiend, if the poor schmucks (what would we do without them, eh?) that you prey on in raiding are leaving high output cash buildings uncollected, that's on them. If they want to invest in defensive buildings (which I wouldn't, I'd just get more high DEF units) that's fine, but it's more a problem or coordinating and being vigilant on the cash buildings. EVERYONE gets raided, regardless of how good your DEF is. A high DEF, of course, will thwart the really weak raiders. And if your stats are so weak that you can't go around raiding or attacking, the problem isn't the lack of defensive buildings...

Your comment on Modern War/Turtle... There are people who sustain their whole income on PvP, and they do surprisingly well. One guy I saw has no income buildings. Nada. He raids all the time, puts valor and money all into units. Kinda cool actually. I do both raid and take income, seems like the sane road to me.

...and I find your analysis of modern/primitive war hilarious.

But regardless, Warfiend, we should probably concentrate on the different circumstances players face, because everyone seems to have different experiences in PvP.

BPs I get range from 90 to 150.

Yes it depends a lot on your level and number of allies. Going cloak in whale territory is the best strategy if you have a very strong army, eg over 100k attack maybe as low as 60k is ok if you are over 499 allies.

What are bp's?

Loss rates have been screwy for months, I still suspect the devs tweek something so that weaker players don't get totally decimated by players with lots of valour units as long as they bulked up their defences against those valour units. That is how I have set up my defence basically several hundred strike eagles and drones targeting incoming super hornets.

There is a point at which defences aren't effective but they are far from useless.

In any event if youbhave strong attack and low ally count you can now sleaze your way through whale territory because we can no longer see every one.

[Agent Orange]

Ok, first of all, like to say this new PvP update looks like a great direction and fosters a more competitive gameplay than the 'hunker down and level up slowly' mentality of yore. However, it's a beta at best.

Some issues I have with it are:
1) rewards are insulting; not sufficient gold to make it worthwhile for players who buy gold anyways, and for free players, you can't do anything with the amount achievable. The money and valor? I can rack up a lot more than the rewards would give out just going about my regular business collecting and harvesting (raiding).

Suggested solution: better rewards or more tiers to balance it out. In fact, yeah, more tiers.

2) now EVERYONE and their cousins are fighting. This in of itself isn't a bad thing (kinda cool, actually, moves the game from a passive to more active multiplayer game). The indirect result of this? 90% of my 'Rivals' list comes up as 'Player is too weak to fight'. This is like playing multiplayer on console, and you're stuck in the lobby for an hour waiting for the game to start. This might not affect all of you, but when you're fighting with ~400 to 500 allies, finding one you can attack is frustrating at best.

Suggested solution: if a player is 'too weak to fight', they shouldn't show up on my 'Rivals' list. change the refresh parameters.

3) Towards the higher levels, players become more dependent on valor than cash in growing their armies. Some place less emphasis on collecting and more on PvP or harvesting (raiding) for/supplement their income. Venal Fighter is nice, but you can get a lot more Super Hornets in a single day if you're aggressive enough. Missions that give Valor as rewards become crucial: when you run out, all you have are the level-related mission and Force Degradation. The former gives less than 1000 valor while the latter, when capped, gives 2000, but requires the enemy to be allied 499~500. End result? People prune their allies to less than 499. I've seen a lot of my rivals drop from 500 to 498 and below over the last few days. This makes mission completion more difficult especially when you couple the problem with the 'too weak to fight' crap. This results in grindingly slow progress.

Suggested solution: make the allies range bigger (eg. 470 and up) for the final force degradation mission, so people have to choose between a better ATK/DEF stat or be targeted by others for valor.

4) There's more incentive to attack than defend - bear with me here, the game rewards aggressive players. Sure you can develop a high DEF and pick and choose who you fight, but at the end of the day, only thing that a low DEF does is make you more likely to be raided or hurt your win/loss ratio, which is an abstract that doesn't hurt you directly (maybe your feelings, but boohoo). If being raided is a problem, then raid others to make up for it. The name of the game is MODERN WAR, not MODERN TURTLE. Anyways, this game favors fighters, which isn't a bad thing, but this serves to exacerbate the other problems outlined above.

Suggested solution: make defending more practical. Let us see what units get taken to a defensive battle the same way we can see the ones in our attacks. balance the combat out by making casualty less likely on defense than in offense.

Your ideas on PvP??

I have a feeling you are fairly new to the game.

Re PvP, since the game started if a player was too weak to fight they dropped off the rival list, it was not immediate however as it felt like the database took time to reconfigue. Now that you get pts for raidings as well as attacking it makes sense to keep a weaked player in the list so you can hit their buildings.

Also in terms of the rivals list, I've been in whale territory since I first coined the term months ago. At first we could see everyone who crossed into it no matter how many allies they had. We were wiping out those who wandered in with as little as one ally and over 500. Now the same scheme that is used else where is being app,ied up here, I suspect the intention is to make things a bit more even though as long as stats are not factored in it will never work.

[GhostShot]

I have a feeling you are fairly new to the game.

Re PvP, since the game started if a player was too weak to fight they dropped off the rival list, it was not immediate however as it felt like the database took time to reconfigue. Now that you get pts for raidings as well as attacking it makes sense to keep a weaked player in the list so you can hit their buildings.

Also in terms of the rivals list, I've been in whale territory since I first coined the term months ago. At first we could see everyone who crossed into it no matter how many allies they had. We were wiping out those who wandered in with as little as one ally and over 500. Now the same scheme that is used else where is being app,ied up here, I suspect the intention is to make things a bit more even though as long as stats are not factored in it will never work.

nah, I've been playing since MW first popped up on the app store. i don't play CC or the other funzio games, if that's what you're insinuating.

it doesn't seem like you've gotten the update yet, otherwise the stuff i've written would make sense to you.

[Agent Orange]

nah, I've been playing since MW first popped up on the app store. i don't play CC or the other funzio games, if that's what you're insinuating.

it doesn't seem like you've gotten the update yet, otherwise the stuff i've written would make sense to you.

I've been playing since before it popped up on the app store. Yes I have the update, if you read my other posts you would know this. You would also know I have never played CC but that is irrelevant.