At Level 112 Is the Game Still Playable?

[Guide rain]

Over the past two days, my valor unit casualties have been so high that it doesn't make sense to even do PvP missions. This includes the new units earned with battle points (HM and Drone so far). So, I decided to back off, but lost over 1K A/D just fending off players 20-40 levels above me who are looking for valor and crates. I get that the high level folks don't have as many rivals, and that their lists were expanded down to us, but at the same time I don't see a way out of this unless the casualty stuff is altered, or the playing field is a little fairer for those of us in the early 100s. I guess, like my current foes, I would lose less stuff if I attacked folks at levels 70-80, but that is not an option for those of us in the early 100s...
Has anyone else been through this and thought through a way out of it? If not, what do you think can be done to make this game still worth the time invested?

[Sugarymama]

My experience is similar. A few days ago, Funzio changed the way we see rivals (at least players over L100 do). I'm currently at L101, and now my rivals are all L110 and above. I haven't seen anyone my level or below in a few days. Not sure if this change was made to make the rankings aspect more challenging, but what doesn't make sense (or is exactly fair), is that there are rivals on my list who are at levels like 130, 145, 129, etc. I've even seen a rival at L200. Why would Funzio rival me against a player that I have no chance of beating if I attack???

To add, the rivals I find with A/D less than me, usually are "too weak to battle", so I can't even attack them. I have had success so far in my battles, having only lost 3 since this started, but it's increasingly harder to find players to attack. I'm wondering if the high rivals on my list see me on theirs, because I don't see lower leveled players on my list. And I haven't seen a single rival who is the same level as me. Why wouldn't I be matched against players on my level anymore??

I'm thinking about emailing the developers if this continues..

[Guide rain]

Sugarymama, Two things:
Are you also losing valor units at higher rates than before?
Second, I read your reply, went into the game, and found that T dizzle just attacked me! How is that for a weird coincidence? Case in point - I "won" but lost a medic...
I never even saw you on a rivals list before, so that makes it even wilder. I guess now you can also figure out where I got my forum name. Thank you autocorrect...

[Sugarymama]

Sugarymama, Two things:
Are you also losing valor units at higher rates than before?
Second, I read your reply, went into the game, and found that T dizzle just attacked me! How is that for a weird coincidence? Case in point - I "won" but lost a medic...
I never even saw you on a rivals list before, so that makes it even wilder. I guess now you can also figure out where I got my forum name. Thank you autocorrect...

That is weird, because I looked at my newsfeed and a guy named Guderian attacked me twice, but I won both attacks. I wish I could take a picture and post it, but I don't have the app that allows me to do that here.

I'm losing units, but not really more than before. I always had a problem with the unit losses during attacks. Especially when I lose good units against a rival I'm much stronger than. Makes no sense to me.

And I honestly can't remember if I attacked you (I'm doing a lot of attacking to rank up), but I have only lost against a couple of people, and that is after attacking them more than once (won the 1st attack but lost the 2nd).

[Guide rain]

I definitely only attacked once, just so I could post on your board. Something is definitely screwy with the game...

[Sugarymama]

Yup. It shows that you attacked about two hours ago, then just now. And it shows me winning both times.

[Q Raider]

Sugarymama I had a similar experience a few days ago when as a level 77 all my opponents were above 107 with ally counts ranging from low 20's to above 500.

Sent a ticket in and it was corrected shortly afterwards.

Think the devs must be playing around.

Also had a case where there was only one opponent continually showing on my rival's list.

Was thinking of sending a ticket in asking for another one cause I had broken the one they gave me:p but let it go for another hour and it corrected itself.

[Sugarymama]

Sugarymama I had a similar experience a few days ago when as a level 77 all my opponents were above 107 with ally counts ranging from low 20's to above 500.

Sent a ticket in and it was corrected shortly afterwards.

Think the devs must be playing around.

Also had a case where there was only one opponent continually showing on my rival's list.

Was thinking of sending a ticket in asking for another one cause I had broken the one they gave me:p but let it go for another hour and it corrected itself.

Thanks Q. So it is a glitch. I'll send in a ticket. I was tired of seeing rivals at L200... Lol

[JMC]

@Sugarymama

The level difference isn't as big of a deal as it is in the lower levels. Once you get to level 100 you can bring the max amount of units into battle, so the strength difference by level isn't very predictable. Some high levels can be much weaker than you and some lower levels can be much stronger.

On a side note, i don't know what your rivals list looks like, but i would assume they may have done that as they don't want you seeing level 90s. Which would give you an unfair advantage of up to 200 units.

Once you pass level 107 or 108, you become visible to us in the top tier. Right now you can see us, but we cannot see you.

[Sugarymama]

@Sugarymama

The level difference isn't as big of a deal as it is in the lower levels. Once you get to level 100 you can bring the max amount of units into battle, so the strength difference by level isn't very predictable. Some high levels can be much weaker than you and some lower levels can be much stronger.

On a side note, i don't know what your rivals list looks like, but i would assume they may have done that as they don't want you seeing level 90s. Which would give you an unfair advantage of up to 200 units.

Once you pass level 107 or 108, you become visible to us in the top tier. Right now you can see us, but we cannot see you.

Thanks JMC. I have been attacking and beating rivals on the list at levels much higher than mine, and I understand about the maximum number of units a player can bring into battle. But strength is measured by A/D, and the chances of mine being higher than a rival at L200 is slim. I'm currently at L102. I should not have rivals that high on my list.

[JMC]

There are actually very few level 200s that are very powerful. The majority of them are experience hackers or energy glitchers. There are only a few level 200s i know of that got there by spending gold, as level means just about nothing up here, most don't bother.

I know what you're frustrated about, but whether your rivals list is a bug or intentional, what you see is what you'll be seeing very soon any way.

[Sugarymama]

I understand what you're saying. I guess I'll keep playing and see what happens.

[Q Raider]

JMC

Am really starting to see what you mean by just how big the Valor advantage through the low loss glitch is as I have come up through the levels.

Spotted one guy at level 82 with 80 Hardened Marines, 65 Expert Attack Drones and 165 Super Hornets.

Bit of a giveaway they don't lose units when you also see they had over 200 heavy bombers, 150 odd Border Gunships and 60 something Mountain Citadel tanks.

Hopefully they find a resolution to this problem soon cause too many of these guys up at the top and unless you have the glitch yourself you will find it difficult to survive without expending Gold.

[JohnnyR]

Some of the logical reasons some people can have such huge numbers is if they saved up valor, or ran super low ally and just kept stockpiling units while gradually adding allies. Significantly overcoming enemies usually stanches the blood flow of lost units. I myself lose only Snipers and Warthogs 99% of the time, and with a good enough economy these losses are negligible (mine is not quite good enough for the progress I want to make, getting there though...). Right now I'm valor hunting, I estimate I lose a SH every hundred or so engagements these days.

Also worth mentioning, when I went low ally, I lost insane amounts of Strike Eagles. Right now, bringing in 800 units, and I lose them about as often as SH, which isn't bad. The more allies, the more meatshields, the fewer and more manageable losses I've found.

[Q Raider]

Thanks JMC will up the ally count and increase the number of shields to see if that helps.

I've just completed a check of loss rates for the higher Valor units based on a little over a thousand interactions.

Had an initial base of 52 SH, 12SF, 8 HM and 8 EAD's then increased it to 60 SH, 12 SF, 12 HM and 12EAD's with 100 snipers as meatshields.

Overall losses were 10 SH, Nil SF, 6 HM and 6 EAD's with the effective loss rate almost quadrupling when the extra units came into play. Kind of expected though as with 109 allies I am doing force degradations against opponents with 180.

Basically those 1000 missions cost me almost 9000 points in lost Valor. Without the missions you would go "Valor broke" just on this relatively small force.

One thing was that I did lose half of the SH's to attacks which I considered were against people whom appear to have the low loss glitch. Going to avoid those as much as I can now and see if the losses reduce. That is probably going to actually be easier in a level or so as they will be far too powerful for me to even consider having a crack at...:cool:

[Dreno33]

I find very confusing and almost pointless in playing in the HLs (partly why I want to try this camping strategy).

1) I never here good feedback about playing in HLs.
2) You HLPs only seem today why you keep playing b/c of the time invested into game.
3) It seems that unless your heavy in gold spending or tend to do camping/crawling here and there, the HLs feels improbable.

Can we get some good feedback on the HLs? Should we even want to get to the 100+ mark?

[ShawnBB]

I find very confusing and almost pointless in playing in the HLs (partly why I want to try this camping strategy).

1) I never here good feedback about playing in HLs.
2) You HLPs only seem today why you keep playing b/c of the time invested into game.
3) It seems that unless your heavy in gold spending or tend to do camping/crawling here and there, the HLs feels improbable.

Can we get some good feedback on the HLs? Should we even want to get to the 100+ mark?

:) Am always an optimistic player,even now at lvl120 and messing around with tough dudes like JMC.
I had a lot of fun at top whale death zone,even wake up with screens of "you lost".
My Econ is healthy enough to fill up unit lost, so i'm ok with all the fight lose.

1-- anybody with 499+ Allie and 30000- defense score is FOREVER in the condition of "too weak to fight". And lot of them are actually active players,lol.
2-- there is a player called "mighty", who is lvl110. Mission completed 64, fights won 4. WTH...
3-- quite a lot of 10000- defense score active players, which is a very good source of farming battle points with a nearly 0 unit lost.

Frankly, The only good feedback I can think of is, you can have fun by seeing lot of new stuff and don't need to worry about exp anymore.

[JMC]

Yeah, ever since they changed the lists a little while ago, there's been quite a few players with low stats that i can find and attack with zero or nearly zero casualties.

@Q raider, not sure if the guy your talking about has the casualty glitch or not. It's much more obvious in the high levels. Some people have an inventory of like 1800 super hornets, 800 m270s and 600 stealth frigates.

I don't really go around looking for these guys. Pretty much everyone who attacks me and loses half the fights, but continues anyways is a casualty glitch player. They don't lose units, and so they don't care whether they lose to me or not.

[Guide rain]

From all the replies, it still seems to me that my valor unit losses are high compared to what others are describing. I thought i understood the concept of meatshields, and have over a hundred snipers, observation vehicles, and transport ships. In the 70-80 range for fighters, ambulances, frigates and inflatables. Am I picking the wrong units as shields? I must lose 10 snipers per stamina bar, so I thought I was at least on the right track with them. As an example, in one attack last night I lost 2 MRLS fighting a weaker rival. That was on top of the 3-4 SH, GIGN, Hornets and SF I lost with the rest of that stamina bar. Any advice folks?

[mickymacirl]

From all the replies, it still seems to me that my valor unit losses are high compared to what others are describing. I thought i understood the concept of meatshields, and have over a hundred snipers, observation vehicles, and transport ships. In the 70-80 range for fighters, ambulances, frigates and inflatables. Am I picking the wrong units as shields? I must lose 10 snipers per stamina bar, so I thought I was at least on the right track with them. As an example, in one attack last night I lost 2 MRLS fighting a weaker rival. That was on top of the 3-4 SH, GIGN, Hornets and SF I lost with the rest of that stamina bar. Any advice folks?

Very same thing is happening to be since Friday it seems.

I had a look at the code for the 0.0 loss ratios from a backup before rival list changes and again last night, compared the old and new files and I don't see any differences in SH or HM ratio to death. Something else has changed.

[JMC]

From all the replies, it still seems to me that my valor unit losses are high compared to what others are describing. I thought i understood the concept of meatshields, and have over a hundred snipers, observation vehicles, and transport ships. In the 70-80 range for fighters, ambulances, frigates and inflatables. Am I picking the wrong units as shields? I must lose 10 snipers per stamina bar, so I thought I was at least on the right track with them. As an example, in one attack last night I lost 2 MRLS fighting a weaker rival. That was on top of the 3-4 SH, GIGN, Hornets and SF I lost with the rest of that stamina bar. Any advice folks?

That is a pretty normal casualty rate. The only reason i experience less casualties than that is because i have targets to attack that are less than 10% of my strength. These guys give zero casualties all the time or 75% of the time.

Anyone higher than about 7500 defence will give casualties almost every time and they kill valor units almost as much as meatshields. Even higher and the casualties gets much worse.

[mickymacirl]

I get ur point but I'm not seeing that really, even a player with 1/6th of my att and def is taking high valor units.

I've stopped playing until Funzio respond to me, there defo something wrong or out of wack.

[JMC]

1/6 is still too high lol

[mickymacirl]

1/6th never given me trouble before, I don't see how someone who's dead and has 1/6th of ur power would kill 1k worth of Valor units in one attack, that isn't correct math.

[Guide rain]

JMC - thanks for the info.
I guess what I still can't wrap my mind around are two things:
First, why the sudden change in casualty rates for my valor units, and second and most importantly, how doing valor missions makes sense moving forward if they result in losing more valor than gained. Do you think Battle Points will be enough for most to be satisfied with?