Critical change needed for PVP

[manbeast]

I love PVP!! I'm a big PVP player, love attacking and raiding.

My favorite PVP mechanics ever were in effect during the PVP tourny. Since then, there have been many changes for the worse.

I believe there is one change that really needs to be made:

If the attacker loses a battle, they should lose more than $30,000


Here is my reasoning:
1. This risk/reward is really skewed. You can break even winning just 1 out of 10 fights! This makes no sense.

2. I look at my news feed right now. I've been attacked 6 times today. Won all 6. All 6 payed 30k. So I won 180k, from unprovoked attacks today. HOWEVER, I lost 1 SF, 1 SH, 2 mine launchers, and a military amb. Thats 500 valor, and $1.1 million. So I'm out 500 valor and $1 million from fending off IDIOTS that are too lazy to check my stats before attacking. They should have to pay for being lazy idiots.

3. $30k in the higher levels is chump change. Not even a penalty really.

I believe the attacker should lose money even if it is vaulted. I mean really there is no reason to attack someone and lose, unless you are just being lazy. For my level, I feel the penalty should be around $1 million. So, I'm goin to say the penalty should be $10,000 x level.

I know there are a ton of other changes that we could argue about, but I wanted to see what the consensus is on this one. Poll coming.

[Sia]

I don't like to check stats. It takes time. I also think if I lose I already loose units so I don't like to double pay.

[Odie]

Personally, if you get attacked and win I do not think you should be ale to lose units...or what you get back should at least cover it.

[JMC]

I agree and slightly disagree.

First off, unless the guy is a casualty glitched player, losing a fight is likely going to net at least 2 losses and more often 3 or 4 losses. This would probably include about 600 valor points and $500K. Which is quite a bit to lose as a penalty. So the losses are pretty substantial already, though i do agree that the actual cash lost needs perhaps the same maximum of 300K. And vaulted cash being lost would also be a good idea to fend off casualty glitchers who aren't losing the units.

In the past month and a half or so, i have been attacked by casualty glitchers quite a bit. They often lose to me or lose about half of the time. If there was a penalty that penetrated their vaulted cash, i would of not been attacked further than once or twice, or i would of gained $300 million. So this addition would be a very good way to fend off these people since they do not seem to be resolving the actual glitch yet.

One problem i can see though is from people who create farm accounts. Honestly, this is a method of cheating. With multiple accounts, one could double or triple his income per hour and perhaps, easily complete valor missions, while fighting someone who is weak enough to net zero casualties, is constantly on his news feed and can freely give him money that is protected from others within a vault.

[manbeast]

I don't like to check stats. It takes time. I also think if I lose I already loose units so I don't like to double pay.

so you dont want to change your vote after all? lol

I stand by what I said. If you are too lazy to do some recon before going to battle then you deserve to double pay for losing!! Thats real life man.


I agree and slightly disagree.


You bring up some good points. The glitchers- yes they attack me as well!! all the time. and they are usually the ones who lose and keep on attacking. They are the main reason I want this change.

The unit loss is a penalty, but I dont see it being a penalty really. I've been doing more aggressive attacks lately trying to get battle points. As a result I've lost a few attacks today that I initiated. My unit loss when I lose is the same as when I win. Usually 2-4 units. Maybe they should increase unit loss for losses? But then the person getting attacked and winning still isnt getting a reward. Thats why I say go with the money!!

[Sia]

I agree and slightly disagree.

First off, unless the guy is a casualty glitched player, losing a fight is likely going to net at least 2 losses and more often 3 or 4 losses. This would probably include about 600 valor points and $500K. Which is quite a bit to lose as a penalty. So the losses are pretty substantial already, though i do agree that the actual cash lost needs perhaps the same maximum of 300K. And vaulted cash being lost would also be a good idea to fend off casualty glitchers who aren't losing the units.

In the past month and a half or so, i have been attacked by casualty glitchers quite a bit. They often lose to me or lose about half of the time. If there was a penalty that penetrated their vaulted cash, i would of not been attacked further than once or twice, or i would of gained $300 million. So this addition would be a very good way to fend off these people since they do not seem to be resolving the actual glitch yet.

One problem i can see though is from people who create farm accounts. Honestly, this is a method of cheating. With multiple accounts, one could double or triple his income per hour and perhaps, easily complete valor missions, while fighting someone who is weak enough to net zero casualties, is constantly on his news feed and can freely give him money that is protected from others within a vault.

I don't want to hijack the thread but how does a farm account work?

[Fukersir]

Stats are a rip. how does someone (me in most cases) with better attack than their defense how does it make sense that I loose?

[RedLabit]

@ manbeast

I'm with you on this one bro. Attackers should pay with vaulted cash if they loose. I lost valuable units too while defending and I win nothing even when I won the battle.
I mean, come on, we should at least be rewarded with some battle points or valor when we win while defending.


@ Sia

I have the same suspicions as JMC. There seemed to be some slave accounts with very low attk/def at my level as well. Btw, I'm at lvl 92.

I suspect this is how it works.

Cash

The master account can time his attack when say the slave acct just finish a round of 24hr building collection. The master can always collect on time from the slave.

The slave can gain plenty of cash with missions and vault the cash. The vaulted cash can be used to buy buildings and tress. When the master visit the base, the slave can sell trees/buildings and have immediate cash for him. The vaulted cash becomes unvaulted.


Valor
With such low def, the master account will practically have zero casualties while attacking. This will earn him free valor.

Anyway I have no proofs or anything. Just pure guess.

[manbeast]

I don't want to hijack the thread but how does a farm account work?

You create a new account. you now have a High level player (HLP) and a low level player (LLP)

You will camp your HLP, and level your LLP, until they are the same level. Along the way you will build up it's economy. When they are at the same lvl then you can find that player on the rivals list and fight them to collect money or raid the big buildings. obviously you will be the only one who knows right when there is unvaulted money/ uncollected buildings. personally i think that is taking it way too far and is too much trouble.


Stats are a rip. how does someone (me in most cases) with better attack than their defense how does it make sense that I loose?

boosts and skill points.

redlabit- looks like we were posting at the same time lol and yes thats exactly how it works. a few members here have slave accounts and have posted about them

[Big John]

At my level I "win" sometimes and only lose unit/s. Should get compensation with cash, valor, BPs and event items during events.

[Corporal Denney]

Manbeast is right. In real life war is expensive for all parties involved. The game should be the same. As the aggressor, you should be willing to foot the bill if things go wrong, and that means even your vaulted money.

In real life there would be retributions that would have to be paid by the loser, enough to cover loses at minimum. When someone attacks and I win $300 and lose a couple of commandos or a Eagle fighter it's a hallow victory. Even though my IPH is high enough now that the lost units are easily replaced, what MB is saying makes perfect sense.

[RedLabit]

Wow..　I just lost the following units to a weaker rival who failed in his raids on my base..
And I got absolutely nothing back in return! I should be rewarded with loots, valors, battlepoints in my valiant defense job! :mad:

I lost...
4 x Global Hawk Drones
2 x Ghost Hounds
1 x Ambulance
1 x Armed Steel worker
1 x Stealth Frigate

[JMC]

I don't want to hijack the thread but how does a farm account work?

People have multiple devices. One device has their main account while the others have accounts that are entirely based off of economy. These accounts gather money for the main account and then if it is timed right, leave the money unvaulted for the main account to attack. Since this player has control of both accounts, he can easily put himself on the main accounts news feed, making it very easy to find and take the unvaulted cash.

I also suspect some people attack their main account with the farm account. Currently this would net the main account 30K everytime.

With manbeasts idea, the efficiency of the farm account would go up by a lot. First off, he would be able to double the amount of cash he takes from the farm account as it would be giving his main account 300K or so everytime it attacks him. On top of that, this money could be lost from the vault. This means that if by chance, someone caught his farm account and attacked it. It would be able to vault all the cash, and still get it towards the main account as the money would come out of his vault. This essentially doubles a players income and vault capacity.

[manbeast]

Manbeast is right. In real life war is expensive for all parties involved. The game should be the same. As the aggressor, you should be willing to foot the bill if things go wrong, and that means even your vaulted money.

In real life there would be retributions that would have to be paid by the loser, enough to cover loses at minimum. When someone attacks and I win $300 and lose a couple of commandos or a Eagle fighter it's a hallow victory. Even though my IPH is high enough now that the lost units are easily replaced, what MB is saying makes perfect sense.

Wish the devs thought like we do!! I mean I really dont see the downside to this. Players should be rewarded for winning and losers should have to pay for losing! simple as that.


Wow..　I just lost the following units to a weaker rival who failed in his raids on my base..
And I got absolutely nothing back in return! I should be rewarded with loots, valors, battlepoints in my valiant defense job! :mad:

I lost...
4 x Global Hawk Drones
2 x Ghost Hounds
1 x Ambulance
1 x Armed Steel worker
1 x Stealth Frigate

wow thats pretty hardcore. guy mustve been an idiot. i wonder how many units he lost lol. but yea i feel your pain bro. i totally agree you should be rewarded

[JohnnyR]

Before talking about taking ever more away from attackers (casualties not bad enough?), how bout bringing up ways to make attacks worth the trouble? There will be a time when PVP will be utterly pointless (already is for some, will be for me and many of you) due to the losses incurred on a heavy duty army. BPs skirt this problem temporarily by giving a reason to attack, and valor is still the main goal in attacking, but neither of these is just compensation for "winning" as it will take years to get anywhere in rank, and valor will eventually dry up.

I'm footing the bill EVERY attack I make in the form of two meatshields lost every single attack. I don't lose many attacks I initiate, so I really don't have a problem with MB's idea, but IMO, the real problem isn't the cost of attacking being too low, but the reward being too low. Neither raiding nor attacking bring anything in cash. When valor missions run out, or become more costly to finish, what then?

I think the low amount you get for successfully defending your base is as a result of the fact that defending takes no risk. If ya wanna raise the stakes to opening up an attacker's vault, I'm fine with that-as long as there's a way for actual attackers to pry open defender's vaults. Two birds, one stone. ;-)

[siL]

I do think that when an attacker attack us or raid us, they could lose their vaulted money, but only capped at 30K
I realise this because I always attack them back, and sometimes right after they attack and drop 30K, but when I attack, I didn't get any money, because they have vaulted money??weird right??

[Corporal Denney]

Capping at 30k won't help much, I am concentrating on the better units and anymore I seem to lose Commandos the most. So capping at 30k means it would only cost me 55k to replace one. I've had attacks where I lost several, as well as bio-warfare troops and global hawks all in the same raid. Makes me wonder what the attacker is losing.

[Tate]

We have all lost costly units while being attacked and winning so I voted in favor, with some of the tweaks discussed here. It would be nice if the Devs paid attention to anything we say here on the forum and asked for input from the players instead of going off half-cocked with their own ideas, which really seem off base most of the time. The extremely High cost valor units being one of them, which they removed after obviously reading our griping here! PAY ATTENTION DEVS!

[manbeast]

bumping this thread because i'm pissed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

got attacked and raided ALOT today!

raided 9 times, i lost 3, won 6
attacked 11 times, lost 3, won 8

through all of those attacks i won about $200,000 which is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING considering i lost $1.5 million and 600 valor in units!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 sea scouts
1 military ambulance
2 mine launchers
1 SH
1SF

WTF man... i won 14/20 (70%) of those encounters. Something needs to change here

[andypandy2]

Gold units don't die.

[manbeast]

Gold units don't die.

oh yea brilliant idea. i'll just throw $5k real money into a sub-par game. great strategy.