Terrible losses...what did you do (again) Gree ??

[Monteverdi]

This is just insane, I attacked someone with 192 units which usually does not cause any losses. Now just one single attack, and I lost a rapid fire vehicle, one comanche helicopter and a heavy artillery all in one shot !
This is highly discouraging and totally irreal ! Thank you Gree for ruining this game even further !

[Mad]

This is just insane, I attacked someone with 192 units which usually does not cause any losses. Now just one single attack, and I lost a rapid fire vehicle, one comanche helicopter and a heavy artillery all in one shot !
This is highly discouraging and totally irreal ! Thank you Gree for ruining this game even further !

I think there are a few factors at play here:


In any battle, I think it is a spin of the dice. If you are the superior army the odds are weighed heavily in your favour of a good outcome. But every now and then a bad number comes up and you lose. It mimiks the real world. Throughout history there have been stories of armies massively out numbered pulling off incredible victories -- the battle of Agincourt is example. These accounts go down in infamy, but the reality is the vast majority of times the superior army wins, but not always. Similarly the odd time in MW the same thing happens.
Though comparing stats you may seem superior, the numbers you are seeing are not always what they seem to be. For example, if your opponent has buildings that boost his stats, like the composite factor or air and naval boosts. These increased stats are not included in the numbers you see. So what you see is not always accurate. You need to study the players base to see if his numbers are boosted.
The guy may be putting all the skill points he earns to defence (these are the points you get to designate everytime you level up). This can have a profound affect on his ability to defend. These are again invisible and I think this is probably the most underestimated component in battle.
Does he have defense buildings. Though most people discount the impact of defense buildings, I don't. From my own personal experience, particularly in raids, I avoid buildings guarded by Defense buildings -- I have found even if I win, I invariably lose units. If I raid a building without defensive building covering it, I can win without unit loss. I find during raids, defensive buildings don't increase the defense surrounding the building, but increase the chance of losses for the opposing player. I use lots of defensive buildings. I had one guy raid me once and I lost a lot of money, but interestingly though he won, he never attacked again. That tells me, his unit losses were high. I even wonder sometimes if defensive buildings also increase the chances of losses during attacks.

[Poopenshire]

Mad, the OP is talking casualty rates not win loss. I know exactly what the OP means. CC has something simikar with explosives consumption. Things are a mess.

[Товарищ]

This is just insane, I attacked someone with 192 units which usually does not cause any losses. Now just one single attack, and I lost a rapid fire vehicle, one comanche helicopter and a heavy artillery all in one shot !
This is highly discouraging and totally irreal ! Thank you Gree for ruining this game even further !

My explanation from another thread:

It has been officially stated that the target's A/D stats don't affect the casualty rate.
I don't know if anything else with the target affects casualty rates, I'm guessing the system is simple enough to not. So all attacks are equal.

If I understand correctly, the "consumption rate" is a probability to die each "use".
0.015 means 1.5% to die, or 15 deaths in a 1000 attacks.
So every attack there's a 1 - 0.015 = 0.985 = 98.5% chance that unit survives.
If you have two of them, it's first 0.985 for the first to survive (not die), then another 0.985 for the second, so 0.985 * 0.985 = 0.985^2.
For N such units the probability of losing NONE is 0.985^N.
So the prob to lose ANY (1 to all) is 1 - 0.985^N, which for 10 becomes 14% and for 100 is 78%
If you do M attacks the prob to lose NONE is (0.985^N)^M, likewise to lose ANY is 1 - (0.985^N)^M; so 5 attacks with 10 units is 53% to lose at least 1.

The conclusion is that the more unit's you "use" the higher the risk that any of them will die. Which is why I want to keep my allies down...!

[Mad]

Mad, the OP is talking casualty rates not win loss. I know exactly what the OP means. CC has something simikar with explosives consumption. Things are a mess.

LOL well that is a wasted 15 minutes of my life I will never get back.

[Ramshutu]

This has been broken since January.

[Monteverdi]

This has been broken since January.

Not that much, I believe it got so bad about the same time when the gold players started to boycott Gree. One of their demands to Gree was to fix the casualty glitch...and I think Gree did it...THEIR WAY !

[Poopenshire]

The first time it got bad was Jan. Then again in Mar. I started lurking on the forums in Jan and the second time they upped the casualty rates in Mar I joined and startes posting. The casualty hes been screwy since day 1 but made worse severak times since.

[dads]

Strange i read this just now as i Just started losing units at a rapid rate I never used to.
Lost heavily unit wise before however not like i have over the last few days someone with 4000 + my readable stats would cause me to lose a few units. Now someone with 200+ or plus my stats or nearly equal to mine is making me lose 3 times more than I used to. The losses ive suffered over the last two days is deff differnt to how it was a few days back (even thou it's been messed up for a while)
It makes no sense since I just upgraded my Composites factory from 6 to 7 just after upgrading that my unit lose is a lot worse.
Also finished upgrading my genetics lab today,so I am baffled by the sudden heavier unit loss. All be it the game seems badly broken.
Just seems strange that as soon as I upgraded my composites factory's my unit loss got way worse.

[Agent Orange]

Actually this has been broken since Funzio messed up the stats of the Stealth Frigate about a month after the game started. They suddenly realized that they had under priced the cost by about 100 valour. So they suddenly changed it's stats so it was weaker.

This created a furor (see a pattern here) so they boosted the stats back up but also raised it's cost. But some of us still had several hundred of these units from the old cost.

Suddenly our loss rates on valour units went through the roof and it never changed back. Basically even with 85,000+ attack and high skill points as a free player it is not economical to attack anyone over a certain defence stat.

My guess, the devs cranked up the loss rates to wipe out this advantage and never bothered to put it back because it was to their advantage. Hmmmmm

[mikebarth1955]

I have also noticed an increase in the death rates of those @#$%@#$ Rapid Fire Vehicles, so much so that I have suspended attacking players. I wanted to finish all 400 of the Force Degradation missions (I'm on the 388th one now). I don't hit anyone with over 18,000 defense stats (I'm at A58/D58 unboosted), but in the last week or so, I have been losing the RFV's one after another (and Commandos too, but that I would expect).

[manbeast]

So the only solution is to stop attacking altogether... Man this game is going down the tubes. I attacked someone with only 600 units yesterday and lost an expert attack drone and a super hornet in one fight! Come on!! Fix it!!

[Monteverdi]

So the only solution is to stop attacking altogether... Man this game is going down the tubes. I attacked someone with only 600 units yesterday and lost an expert attack drone and a super hornet in one fight! Come on!! Fix it!!
That is exactly what I was talking about, and it gets even worse. I attacked a player which had only 96 units yesterday and still my units ($ 300k and more of value) were dying like flies. That makes no sense at all ! They should rename the game in "Modern Peace" since this is what they are forcing us to do.

[Ph4ntom Stranger]

I feel where you guys are coming from too. I raided a rivals level 1 Genetics Lab (No defense buildings in sight, and he had 1/5 of my stats), and I lost 3 Bio Warfare Troops, 1 Explosives Expert, and 2 Commandos.... Really?? I only did it to get a few extra valour points & partly to test, but that is seriously pretty bad to lose six units to someone that is THAT much weaker than you. Sad state of affairs there.

[Poopenshire]

I have been postings examples of this for months. I lose >2000 valor in a single action many times. look back at some of my old posts and threads. I have been documenting this a long time. its not new and its just a money trap to get everyone to buy golden units.

[Al Murkya]

I have been postings examples of this for months. I lose >2000 valor in a single action many times. look back at some of my old posts and threads. I have been documenting this a long time. its not new and its just a money trap to get everyone to buy golden units.

....Bingo!

[Monteverdi]

I have been postings examples of this for months. I lose >2000 valor in a single action many times. look back at some of my old posts and threads. I have been documenting this a long time. its not new and its just a money trap to get everyone to buy golden units.
Nope, this is not what I was talking about. I know this and that is why I adapted my strategy ever since. I would only attack players with either below 10 k defense or less than 600 units, so I did not lose a single unit. But since last week, Gree makes you lose units even if you go below that threshold ! This is what has changed.

[vaporeon]

This is the huge reason I don't PvP any more because I lose huge powerful units each attack. Anywhere to 3-4 units each attack.

[Poopenshire]

This is the huge reason I don't PvP any more because I lose huge powerful units each attack. Anywhere to 3-4 units each attack.

I have seen your units. You losing much of anything is a huge loss.

[Poopenshire]

Nope, this is not what I was talking about. I know this and that is why I adapted my strategy ever since. I would only attack players with either below 10 k defense or less than 600 units, so I did not lose a single unit. But since last week, Gree makes you lose units even if you go below that threshold ! This is what has changed.

This is something some of us had predicted for months was in the process of occuring. there was no way Gree(d) would let us keep our units we were collecting with out paying gold. every time someone works out a way to either reduce they make new ways to kill us. but still whats most distrubring is they cannot figure out the low/no casualty glitchers.

[jeffrey]

More reason for the boycott, people!

[vaporeon]

Why build a system like that though? It defeats the purpose of PvP when all interact not using gold units become super unbearable. You want to keep people playing and turn them away from a core component of this game which is PvP.

[Товарищ]

An army (A) that is ten times the size of another army (B) should have about ten times higher upkeep. If you are high level and bring a ****load of units to a fight, you will have more casualties.
See my mathematical explanation on page 1.

As far as gameplay goes, it sucks balls! You have to be very restrictive with interaction. Which goes against the PvP part of this game, which is it's main selling point!
This leads to (my) one strategy: keep allies down, keep out of whale territory and participate in events as much as possible to get indestructibles.


Another thing I realized in this thread is that the Infirmary boost is inactive during upgrading, just like money-buildings don't produce money, at least this would explain some of my experiences!

[Paulss99]

I have had the same problem. I have attack of 42k and attacked someone with defence of 2k and I lost a stealth boat, mobile artillery and a hardened marine!

[vaporeon]

An army (A) that is ten times the size of another army (B) should have about ten times higher upkeep. If you are high level and bring a ****load of units to a fight, you will have more casualties.
See my mathematical explanation on page 1.

As far as gameplay goes, it sucks balls! You have to be very restrictive with interaction. Which goes against the PvP part of this game, which is it's main selling point!
This leads to (my) one strategy: keep allies down, keep out of whale territory and participate in events as much as possible to get indestructibles.


Another thing I realized in this thread is that the Infirmary boost is inactive during upgrading, just like money-buildings don't produce money, at least this would explain some of my experiences!


A game is not suppose to be made like that. No game that does PvP has a system like this. In many card games, the player with the better deck and skill wins. Sometimes you'll lose to dead draws but not often. In RPG's a critical hit can lose a game for you (Pokemon). In this game, unless you buy gold, you always have dead draws or critical hits against you. There is no excuse to lose very low causality rate units each attack. The game should all you to choose what units go into battle against what units. This way attack and defense number don't matter much so you control what lives or dies.

If I'm attacking someone with 76 Fighter Jets as their only unit, I should be able to attack with my 76+ A10 Warthog or defend with my 76+ Global Hawk Drones and we both take hits based on that battle. What I'm saying is I should be able to set what units should fight what units. Also based on this system, indestructible or gold units dont win every fight. They can still lose the battle but retain the perk that they can't die. If my opponent attacks me with 47 Stealth Fighters, I should be able to defend against them with my 2000+ Fighter Jets and only that unit. I can only lose units I set to attack or defend with, not what I don't have set. I should also be able to set what units I can defend each of my building with. This ads SO much more strategy to the game its unreal and would make it one of the best games on the market.

[Monteverdi]

An army (A) that is ten times the size of another army (B) should have about ten times higher upkeep. If you are high level and bring a ****load of units to a fight, you will have more casualties.
See my mathematical explanation on page 1.!
Sorry, but this still does not make sense for me. My casualty rate should not depend on whether I bring 2000 units but rather on the number of units and strength of the defending army. Let's say the opponent has only one unit, taking your model he would never use that unit but I would still lose plenty of mine, so how realistic is that ?
This game as it is now simply SUCKS !

[iamnasty]

Yep everyone is rite, if you raid anyone with the defense half of your attack, you'll win BUT the casualty is high, everyone can go and check it out, GREEd did something to the game, best boycott to avoid more 'losses'!!!!

Cheers

[mikebarth1955]

An army (A) that is ten times the size of another army (B) should have about ten times higher upkeep. If you are high level and bring a ****load of units to a fight, you will have more casualties.
See my mathematical explanation on page 1.


From your earlier quote, I am interpreting you to say that the number of casualties is purely a function of how many you take to battle and independent of how many the target has.

It doesn't make sense to me that taking 2000 units into battle and having a consumption rate of 1% would always produce 20 casualties on average, regardless of whether you attacked someone with 1900 units or you attacked someone with 19 units. (Assuming all units for attacker and attackee are otherwise equal -- all commandos, for instance).

I understand that number of units determines whether you win or lose, but it seems like it would determine how much you win or lose, too.

However, there are plenty of other goofy things about this game, so nothing surprises me anymore. Thanks for your explanation!

[Crime City Mark]

I had to take some time and confirm this with the dev team, but this is actually the fix for the casualty issue. If you're seeing higher casualty rates, it's because you were effected by the problem.

[Shinazueli]

I had to take some time and confirm this with the dev team, but this is actually the fix for the casualty issue. If you're seeing higher casualty rates, it's because you were effected by the problem.

If you're seeing higher casualty rates, it's because you were affected by the problem.

Fixed that for you.

[Monteverdi]

I had to take some time and confirm this with the dev team, but this is actually the fix for the casualty issue. If you're seeing higher casualty rates, it's because you were effected by the problem.
Come on Mark, you can't be serious. I was always losing plenty of units and the no casualties against players with low unit count was the last good thing left in the game and it actually made perfect sense.
This had nothing to do with the actual casualty glitch, where I would attack a player of equal strength and I would be the only one losing units. I thought you could do much better than this ! As it is now the game is totally gold unit biased and at the long run Gree will lose free players and casual gold buyers.

[Guderian40]

Monteverdi, that's it! Does GREE really think their customers are math idiots?

And if you WIN a PvP battle you should be rewarded not punished by losing more money and valour units than you receive from it. GREE really managed it to ruin the core element of that game for short profit reasons. Quelle dômage!

[Paulss99]

I agree completely the only way of actually progressing without gold buying is valour units and since this so called fix every time I attack anyone regardless of defence value I lose them. I have just lost a hardened marine, pave low helicopter and a avenger attacking someone whose defence value was 7k and my attack value is 41k. My attack resulted in no casualties for the other person. If this so called fix stays in place there is no point playing the game unless you want to spend lots of money on gold units.

[Agent Orange]

I had to take some time and confirm this with the dev team, but this is actually the fix for the casualty issue. If you're seeing higher casualty rates, it's because you were effected by the problem.

Hi Mark, thanks for popping in and letting us know. But I'm actually seeing the opposite from my account. Today I attacked someone I have in the past who has very weak defence and lost two Transport Raiders in one shot. I've lost singles before but nothing like this. I do expect to loose units that has always been the case but it is so much skewed the other way now that I had to send in a ticket about it today.

[Agent Orange]

I agree completely the only way of actually progressing without gold buying is valour units and since this so called fix every time I attack anyone regardless of defence value I lose them. I have just lost a hardened marine, pave low helicopter and a avenger attacking someone whose defence value was 7k and my attack value is 41k. My attack resulted in no casualties for the other person. If this so called fix stays in place there is no point playing the game unless you want to spend lots of money on gold units.

That will not work since the loss rate on valour units has always been higher than other units and now appears to be worse. The way the game is working now it is not possible to do PvP unless you have an all gold army.

So if you can't afford to do that then your only other option is to delete allies, do all the free scratchers and events you can and build up your indestructible free units. Problem is you will most likely remain very weak since the drop rate for the higher value indestructible loot is very low.

[PIRATE JUSTICE]

People, no need to question what we've been told.

Do not resist the party line, do not dare to be different.

We have been told that the problem has been fixed, and in keeping with past practice and protocol, it is simply an INVISIBLE fix.

Who are we to question our betters?

We must do as we are told.

We must believe whatever we are told.

Now is not the time, nor will there ever be a time; to question, quibble, or quiz our betters.

Thank you, Gree, for hearing us and fixing this problem.

I am very grateful for this wonderful solution.

[Crime City Mark]

People, no need to question what we've been told.

Do not resist the party line, do not dare to be different.

We have been told that the problem has been fixed, and in keeping with past practice and protocol, it is simply an INVISIBLE fix.

Who are we to question our betters?

We must do as we are told.

We must believe whatever we are told.

Now is not the time, nor will there ever be a time; to question, quibble, or quiz our betters.

Thank you, Gree, for hearing us and fixing this problem.

I am very grateful for this wonderful solution.

You're in violation of the following posting rule:

"Flame, Troll, or otherwise be a nuisance"

This is your one and only warning. Engage in discussions as a constructive adult, or please leave.

[Gambit12]

You're in violation of the following posting rule:

"Flame, Troll, or otherwise be a nuisance"

This is your one and only warning. Engage in discussions as a constructive adult, or please leave.

Hey CCmark what's the deal on the Forum tournament & that Add me monday..?

[Crime City Mark]

Hey CCmark what's the deal on the Forum tournament & that Add me monday..?

Being worked on. Hopefully will have an update by EoD today.

[Gambit12]

Being worked on. Hopefully will have an update by EoD today.

Thanks CCMark..! You are the man..!

[mickymacirl]

I had to take some time and confirm this with the dev team, but this is actually the fix for the casualty issue. If you're seeing higher casualty rates, it's because you were effected by the problem.

I believe a number of months ago you informed us that there was no "casualty issue", and that it was just math and luck. Please explain.

I'm losing more units like other people on the forum, and I've never been effected by the "problem" of low or no casualties, except when ive reported bugs to you, be good if you explained that too.

[Dr. Dengus]

I believe a number of months ago you informed us that there was no "casualty issue", and that it was just math and luck. Please explain.

I'm losing more units like other people on the forum, and I've never been effected by the "problem" of low or no casualties, except when ive reported bugs to you, be good if you explained that too.

If someone was lucky enough to fight 50+ times and not lose a single unit, while others experience 2-4 losses per battle, they should buy tickets for every lottery they are eligible for, for the rest of their lives.

[Mcdoc]

If someone was lucky enough to fight 50+ times and not lose a single unit, while others experience 2-4 losses per battle, they should buy tickets for every lottery they are eligible for, for the rest of their lives.I started a whole thread explaining exactly how I lose MAYBE one unit in 200 battles - and TRUST ME - I do not have the No Casualty Glitch as if I don't follow my own attack strategy - I can lose 3 to 6 units in each & every battle.




I was going to respond in PJ's peasant thread but didn't want to hijack his thread so I figured this could be a topic of it's own . . . . .

http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?41828-Casualty-rate-glitch

[Dr. Dengus]

Thanks I'll check that out. When I do valor missions, I purposely look for rivals with an extremely low unit count. This usually indicates the player has quit, but I have noticed drastically decreased casualties when this happens. Haven't done valor missions in a while since I'm 1 level away from the next boss tier. Hopefully my strategy will still hold true when I start up again ...

[Crime City Mark]

I believe a number of months ago you informed us that there was no "casualty issue", and that it was just math and luck. Please explain.

I'm losing more units like other people on the forum, and I've never been effected by the "problem" of low or no casualties, except when ive reported bugs to you, be good if you explained that too.

I'm pretty sure I said there was no exploit. There was an issue with the math letting some players have lower casualty rates, which is what was fixed.

[Mcdoc]

I'm pretty sure I said there was no exploit. There was an issue with the math letting some players have lower casualty rates, which is what was fixed.

So is it possible that some of us have a math glitch that causes extremely high casualties per battle - or is it normal for someone to lose 6 units in a battle that we clearly won?

[Matt Thornton]

I'm pretty sure I said there was no exploit. There was an issue with the math letting some players have lower casualty rates, which is what was fixed.
yeah right mark, except it is not fixed. i still lose maybe 1 -2 units every 200 - 300 fights.

[Crime City Mark]

So is it possible that some of us have a math glitch that causes extremely high casualties per battle - or is it normal for someone to lose 6 units in a battle that we clearly won?

It's possible, and I've asked the engineers to look into it as of this morning. Whatever I find out I'll share (if I can).

[Ph4ntom Stranger]

yeah right mark, except it is not fixed. i still lose maybe 1 -2 units every 200 - 300 fights.

Losing Only 1-2 units every 200-300 battles seems pretty darn good imo. No disrespect. Am I missing something? In a war game losing units is expected. It's when you lose 6+ units in just a couple battles against a rival you are clearly superior to where there is an issue.

[Dr. Dengus]

Losing Only 1-2 units every 200-300 battles seems pretty darn good imo. No disrespect. Am I missing something? In a war game losing units is expected. It's when you lose 6+ units in a battle against a rival you are clearly superior to where there is an issue.

I think CCM was stating that the no cas. glitch had been fixed. And Thornton, who has said glitch, is saying that things are still the same.

[Matt Thornton]

I think CCM was stating that the no cas. glitch had been fixed. And Thornton, who has said glitch, is saying that things are still the same.
that is correct Dr.

[Poopenshire]

How about instead of fixing the glitchers you give us all the glitch.

[Big John]

What about the win glitch, when you get attacked or raided and win by losing units.

[Monteverdi]

The game is total rediculous as it is now, I just lost again units when attacking a player which had 86 units in total with a defense of 3 k vs. my 75 k attack. Needless to say he lost nothing...what a joke !

[Dr. Dengus]

The game is total rediculous as it is now, I just lost again units when attacking a player which had 86 units in total with a defense of 3 k vs. my 75 k attack. Needless to say he lost nothing...what a joke !

That's not good ... 86 total units? Wow. What units did you lose? That's usually best case scenario for limiting unit loss, attacking someone with a very sparse army.

[Arizona]

The game is total rediculous as it is now, I just lost again units when attacking a player which had 86 units in total with a defense of 3 k vs. my 75 k attack. Needless to say he lost nothing...what a joke !

How do you even see players with such a large range between you?
He might have very low allies and gold units that he's not gonna lose.
I'm just trying to think of how something like that happens.

[vaporeon]

CCM, do I have to make a video for you to show how bad my losses are? I'd hate to do it as it would ruin my stats but I don't think you understand where we are coming from.

[LUEZANA]

I am seeing the same problem some here are reporting. Until recently I could attack people as high as 7-8000 A/D (I have 35-36000 for A/D). Some of these people are the same ones I have always attacked even as low as 1000 A/D. Below 4000 A/D i would lose maybe 1 unit in dozens of attacks. Now even if the person is 1000 i will lose 1-3 units every battle. This is definitely something that is broken. I noticed someone mentioned something about the infirmary boost not working while it is being upgraded. Now that I think back, this problem started after my latest upgrade on the infirmary. I am currently at level 6 on the infirmary. I wonder if somehow the upgrade completed, but the game doesnt realize that it is complete and therefore not taking affect. Others that are seeing this problem, what are your infirmaries at? Is it possible the infirmary upgrade could be the culprit?

[mickymacirl]

How about instead of fixing the glitchers you give us all the glitch.

But but, the glitch doesn't exist remember!

[mickymacirl]

I'm pretty sure I said there was no exploit. There was an issue with the math letting some players have lower casualty rates, which is what was fixed.

Na there are exploits, we both know that, the plist edit exploit allowed people to set unit cas to 0, I sent you and CJ all of this information.

[Desas]

Usualy I don't post too much in the forum but...
Yet again another "casualty improvement".
I normally followed the rule of attacking someone <10k
(long way to get to colonel, but I am in my second third)
And cas was 1-2 units every 10-15 rounds + 1 valor every 20 turns

Now I lose every 4-5 rounds both normal and valor.
My attack is ~50k in L105.

And I even can't boycott with my wooden tapjoy gold...

P.S. when I go for high BP return battles I loose 4-5 unit every time
P.P.S long live "modern peace"

[Monteverdi]

I am seeing the same problem some here are reporting. Until recently I could attack people as high as 7-8000 A/D (I have 35-36000 for A/D). Some of these people are the same ones I have always attacked even as low as 1000 A/D. Below 4000 A/D i would lose maybe 1 unit in dozens of attacks. Now even if the person is 1000 i will lose 1-3 units every battle. This is definitely something that is broken. I noticed someone mentioned something about the infirmary boost not working while it is being upgraded. Now that I think back, this problem started after my latest upgrade on the infirmary. I am currently at level 6 on the infirmary. I wonder if somehow the upgrade completed, but the game doesnt realize that it is complete and therefore not taking affect. Others that are seeing this problem, what are your infirmaries at? Is it possible the infirmary upgrade could be the culprit?

Nope, it rather has to do with Gree's recent "fix" of the "not existing casualty glitch" or in simple words of taking the last bit of strategy you could use to minimize your losses out of the game.

[Agent Orange]

Yes they have adjusted the program to increase our losses when attacking weaker players from what I can see and they have also boosted the loss rates for some of the high stat loot units such as Transport Raiders. Basically means PvP is no longer viable for any players who do not have an all gold army as your losses far outstrip any gains you can make.

I think I can sort of maybe slightly see the logic in this since in the whale zone weaker players just get tossed in and either sink or frantically try and swim. If they get their entire army wiped out by stronger players doing goals for valour then they are going to quit or as I suspect the devs had hoped for buy gold to try and stay afloat. Problem is though that some of these players are so weak that they are just overwhelmed. Why I see basically every weak player in whale territory abandoning their base.

So in a sense they are trying I suspect to help the weak but it's backfiring because their same fix is wrecking the game for free and low gold spenders.

But I agree Monteverdi, " Gree's recent "fix" of the "not existing casualty glitch" or in simple words of taking the last bit of strategy you could use to minimize your losses out of the game."

[Minister Timothy]

I have been reading the post and I am amazed that no one at gree is listening to anything. I had an average valor count of 20-30k when this started. Now I have less than 100. Had to spend it because without a gold base high priced units don't add anything to your a/d and you can't vault enough to make a difference with them. When I attack players I usually only attack android privates because without rankings that is how they show up. Because they have less inventory available and did not have boss events there are fewer indestructibles. They tend to abandon more than others. That is one imbalance in the game. But the casualty rate on a player with 55 units should be zero. That is the math on that. I guess gree is just using that new math my daughter was telling me about. I have over 2500 in energy so I guess I will be doing missions until they fix the problem. Darn, now they r going to raise the casualty rate there. I now dub thee, gree, Modern Loser!

[TonySpaghetti]

I had to take some time and confirm this with the dev team, but this is actually the fix for the casualty issue. If you're seeing higher casualty rates, it's because you were effected by the problem.

If you're going to edit for spelling, you should edit for grammar too. The correct word is affected, NOT effected.

[Mr.Grumpy]

i've stopped attacking completely. the casualty rates are just to high. i'm back to a sim-city style of play.

[Mcdoc]

i've stopped attacking completely. the casualty rates are just to high. i'm back to a sim-city style of play.. I still stand by my BP method to avoid ALL casualties. I haven't seen any change in casualty rates since this post was created.

[manbeast]

I had to take some time and confirm this with the dev team, but this is actually the fix for the casualty issue. If you're seeing higher casualty rates, it's because you were effected by the problem.

I have checked with 3 of my friends who self admitting low casualty glitchers. They still have zero casualties. Please go fire your dev team and higher people who know what they're doing. Or just tell them to undo the fix and start over.

Another thing- when I send in a ticket reporting a low casualty glitcher who has attacked me 200 times for no reason, why don't they do something about it?? I don't mind the people who have it, but those who exploit it get on my nerves.

[Crime City Mark]

I have checked with 3 of my friends who self admitting low casualty glitchers. They still have zero casualties. Please go fire your dev team and higher people who know what they're doing. Or just tell them to undo the fix and start over.

Another thing- when I send in a ticket reporting a low casualty glitcher who has attacked me 200 times for no reason, why don't they do something about it?? I don't mind the people who have it, but those who exploit it get on my nerves.

Because it's not an individual thing. This isn't something you do and then suddenly your casualties go down. This was a bit of code in the game that impacted certain players, and that code has been removed.

[Paulss99]

I have now had to give up attacking people as I lose units every time I attack. I am a major with a 40k attack and I attacked a lieutenant who had a 20k defence and I lost 3 units including a special ops helicopter and a hardened marine. All the fix has done is to stop me being able to attack anyone without losing valuable units. What is the point in playing a game where you cannot attack without losing units?

[Selfproclaimed]

I have to attack someone with completely horrible stats to Not lose units. If I attack anyone with stats even remotely close to mine. I lose a couple units. And that's with 48% casualty reduction

[manbeast]

thanks for the reply mark.


I have now had to give up attacking people as I lose units every time I attack. I am a major with a 40k attack and I attacked a lieutenant who had a 20k defence and I lost 3 units including a special ops helicopter and a hardened marine. All the fix has done is to stop me being able to attack anyone without losing valuable units. What is the point in playing a game where you cannot attack without losing units?


sounds like you were a low casualty glitcher and now you have lost the glitch. maybe the fix is working...??

[Shinazueli]

Honestly, the casualties aren't that bad. They add a dimension of required IPH for all but valor complete armies that was heretofore missing from some players strategies.

And for the ten MILLIONTH time; it's been confirmed several times, by blues in this forum, that relative A/D stats have absolutely no effect on the casualty rate. It's based solely on the number of units you take and their individual casualty rate.

Translation: there's two ways to avoid casualties, not attacking (or being attacked), or open your wallet. That's it. Live with casualties, the rest of us have had to.

For the mathematically impaired. Lets take a theoretical unit with a casualty rate of .01 [Note: all casualty rates have been datamined and are in a spreadsheet that I've seen on these forums.] (1%). Let's also assume you theoretically bring 100 of them with you to battle. That means that (assuming a normal random distribution) you'll lose 1 unit approximately 2/3 of the time (67% = 1 standard deviation from the mean). If you happen to be attacking a player with half your stats, that's what we call a coincidence. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Google it.

[manbeast]

Honestly, the casualties aren't that bad. They add a dimension of required IPH for all but valor complete armies that was heretofore missing from some players strategies.

And for the ten MILLIONTH time; it's been confirmed several times, by blues in this forum, that relative A/D stats have absolutely no effect on the casualty rate. It's based solely on the number of units you take and their individual casualty rate.


Translation: there's two ways to avoid casualties, not attacking (or being attacked), or open your wallet. That's it. Live with casualties, the rest of us have had to.


doesnt matter what they say. doesnt make it true. i'm absolutely certain than defensive stat has more to do with my casualties than # of units.

they also denied the presence of low casualty glitchers for 9 months. doesnt make them disappear.

Edit- not saying number of units doesn't matter at all. It does play a factor. But stats definitely play a part.

I'm also skeptical about units individual casualty rate. It can be useful in deciding which units die (meat shield strategy). But as far as total units killed I don't think it matters.

[Shinazueli]

doesnt matter what they say. doesnt make it true. i'm absolutely certain than defensive stat has more to do with my casualties than # of units.

they also denied the presence of low casualty glitchers for 9 months. doesnt make them disappear.

Please allow me to be more clear. Independent third parties (read: hackers) who have dived into the code, have verified that statement. I saw it on these forums, but I remember it being credible.

This, to me, a mathematically inclined person, means that the burden of proof lies with the naysayers. Take a couple thousand data points, complete with relative A/D ratios and casualty numbers. Then we will believe it. Aggregate data from several people would be best.

Otherwise, I'm going with the guy with blue letters and the code scroungers who have no reason to lie.

[manbeast]

the code tells you nothing about how casualties are determined. that is server side. unless you know an engineer who works at gree then you have no idea how they work besides what you see in the game.

code readers aren't hackers. anyone can do it.

don't need a couple thousand data points. do 5 attacks on someone with low stats and get zero casualties. 5 attacks on someone with high stats and 20 units die. if you don't see the correlation then you are blind.

casualties aren't just some simple equation you can plug consumption rates into. the way mark described it (and the only real info we have) is that each unit rolls a dice to see if it will live or die. if the first unit dies then the next unit rolling the dice has a lower chance of dying. if two units die then there is a lesser chance of the 3rd unit dying.

this is why consumption rates don't matter for overall casualty. attacking a strong player, you are always going to lose that first unit. even if all the units you have are extremely low casualty, the odds of the first one dying are still so great.

[stuartb]

Please allow me to be more clear. Independent third parties (read: hackers) who have dived into the code, have verified that statement. I saw it on these forums, but I remember it being credible.

This, to me, a mathematically inclined person, means that the burden of proof lies with the naysayers. Take a couple thousand data points, complete with relative A/D ratios and casualty numbers. Then we will believe it. Aggregate data from several people would be best.

Otherwise, I'm going with the guy with blue letters and the code scroungers who have no reason to lie.

I am pretty mathematically inclined myself, and I would have to see the posts to be able to comment on CCM's descriptions. I don't believe that the "consumption rate" itself differs by who you attack. If it is 0.015 for a unit, then it is 0.015 no matter who you attack. However, the way that the formula treats the consumption rate can alter the number of units that "die" in an attack. For example, say that you take 2,000 identical units, each of which has a consumption rate of 0.01, into battle with a rival that has 500 of the exact same units.

If the # of casualties is purely a function of how many that you take into battle, you would expect to lose 20. If the # of casualties is a function of how many that actually battle with the rival, though, then you would expect only 5 casualties because of the 2000 you take into battle, only 500 are engaged. The other 1,500 units are sitting on the sidelines watching the fight.

There are lots of ways to program the mathematics of the engagement, each of which will produce different #'s of casualties. I have not gone back and read each and every message, but I have read the ones where CCM says "I will not discuss the particulars of the calculation" and that speaks volumes.

I have been keeping some stats on A/D numbers and on casualties. The higher the rival's D, the more casualties. That doesn't mean that the "consumption rate" differs, but it does seem to show that the number and/or type of units that you attack does come into play when applying the consumption rate.

I don't have any reason to lie either. I just know a lot of math, and have been doing mathematical research for a living for a couple of decades now. Casualty rates may be constants, but the number of casualties is partially a function of the stats of the rival who you attack.

[Selfproclaimed]

I don't care what you've read or how smart you are at math. Reality is stats play a role, not just the units. If I can attack someone with really low stats compared to mine and not lose a single unit for hundreds of battles. But when I attack someone with stats near mine, ill lose some units....I see it how it is. I don't mind losing units. But don't try and insult people. Ive been on this forum since march. And don't know who the hell your talking about when you say by blues in this forum. Your starting to sound like the engineers that claimed the boosted units were working. The engineers themselves would tell ccm that they were working. When they were proven and tested that they weren't. So no, I don't give a **** what the code says. Stats play a major role. End of story.

[Shinazueli]

I am pretty mathematically inclined myself, and I would have to see the posts to be able to comment on CCM's descriptions. I don't believe that the "consumption rate" itself differs by who you attack. If it is 0.015 for a unit, then it is 0.015 no matter who you attack. However, the way that the formula treats the consumption rate can alter the number of units that "die" in an attack. For example, say that you take 2,000 identical units, each of which has a consumption rate of 0.01, into battle with a rival that has 500 of the exact same units.

If the # of casualties is purely a function of how many that you take into battle, you would expect to lose 20. If the # of casualties is a function of how many that actually battle with the rival, though, then you would expect only 5 casualties because of the 2000 you take into battle, only 500 are engaged. The other 1,500 units are sitting on the sidelines watching the fight.

There are lots of ways to program the mathematics of the engagement, each of which will produce different #'s of casualties. I have not gone back and read each and every message, but I have read the ones where CCM says "I will not discuss the particulars of the calculation" and that speaks volumes.

I have been keeping some stats on A/D numbers and on casualties. The higher the rival's D, the more casualties. That doesn't mean that the "consumption rate" differs, but it does seem to show that the number and/or type of units that you attack does come into play when applying the consumption rate.

I don't have any reason to lie either. I just know a lot of math, and have been doing mathematical research for a living for a couple of decades now. Casualty rates may be constants, but the number of casualties is partially a function of the stats of the rival who you attack.

I understand what you are saying. I respect that your data does not support my theory. I can't find the relevant thread.

Now, I'm very capable of doing statistical modeling, and I'm sure you could help me out with some of the aspects I'm missing.

I believe that with a few thousand data points, plotted with A/D ratio (attacker to defender) vs number of casualties (controlled, preferably, with the same type of unit, ideally, but that would be hard in practice).

I propose a new thread, with preformatted entries.

Ie: (your (calculated) unboosted attack) (their displayed defense) (#of unit lost) (name of unit)

I believe a good null hypothesis would be that A/D stats play no role in overall units lost, with the alternate hypothesis as A/D stats do play a role in casualty rates.

Either way, even if you don't support my theory, the model would then be able to predict, within a reasonable degree of certainty, at what cutoff ratio you begin to lose units. This would be helpful to many people.

I can start a new thread, or we could use this one. Please, help me be constructive. If that doesn't motivate you, you could also realize that if the model says the alternative hypothesis is correct, you'd have indisputable evidence that Gree lied to our faces.

Side note, please post no fewer than ten battle results with complete details, in a nice format, for data entry purposes.

Last note, I'd simply do this myself but I'm camping hard. Sorry.

[Mcdoc]

It's cool that you guys are looking at this from a statistical point of view - but if you check out my thread about the casualty glitch

( http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?41828-Casualty-rate-glitch )

I have found a method of attack that let's me go weeks at a time without experiencing a single lost unit. The first few pages are on topic - unfortunately the last page has turned into an inquisition - but some really good info about losses :)

In fact - a few people have already documented their series of attacks that you can examine to support your theory or challenge mine :)

[Desas]

Mcdoc - when you don't loose units for hundreds of battles with your strategy (certain BO number) I was just wondering whether your army has some high casualty units?

Mine does have - and with recent changes I started loosing units even when getting only 30-50 bp (attacking less than 10k def players with my 53k att.

As for the mathematical discussion there is a good saying regarding theory and practise "theoretically I have a horse, but practically he is dead" - I totally disagree with Gree saying that whom you attack means nothing for your casualty rate - it's simple and clear on my side of statistics:
constant: my att=53k
defender1 (less than 10k) - losing 0-2 units (usually 0-1)
defender2 (less than 20k) - losing 0-2 units (usually 1-2)
defender3 (less than 30k) - losing 1-3 units (usually 2-3)
defender4 (less than 40k) - losing 2-4 units (usually 3-4)

[Agent Orange]

I had been using a similar formula Desas in terms of attacking. My attack score is just under 90K and I tested a few theories attacking players less than 10K defence. Up until the other day, when this thread started I could completely overwhelm those players with no losses.

But something has changed in that my loss rates have increased to the point that it is not worth doing PvP. As above that attack scenario would generate single or multiple losses of Super Hornets, Elite Ops or Transport Raiders! I always intel my rival before attacking to see what kind of mix they have of air defence units and even with very weak or low number of units my losses are still high.

So where does that leave me? I don't know, now the comment was something about high defence stats giving you the 'glitch' which might be possible in that my defence stats are very high but in terms of attacking in the past I took casualties so I would say I did not have such a glitch.

From looking at those who attacked me in the past who had the glitch, what I could see from those players is that they probably did not have high defence skill points because I could return the attack without loosing. Just take high levels of casualties so I would have suspected that those with the 'casualty' glitch had very high attack skill points and not high defence skill points.

If Gree targeted those with high defence skill points they probably went the wrong direction I think.

It obviously is some sort of calculation in game. Perhaps what is going wrong is all these units that are supposed to produce certain results other than not working caused the devs to make some changes to the way in which the game calculates losses and that is what has mess the whole thing up.

I've been playing for over a year and it seems to me things started to go bad with the Stealth Frigate change but then continued to get worse as these 'low casualty' loot units started turning up, and come to think of it the boost buildings as well.

[Poopenshire]

Currently lowered my allies and my boosted attack (assault bear not counted) is 96K.

I can attack and recieve casualties as follows:

Def raw stats

<15,000 no casualties
15,000 to 19,000 about 1 casualt in every 5 to 10 attacks
19,000 to 25,000 1 casualty per attack and 2 every 5 to 10 attacks
>25,000 forget about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Agent Orange]

One other observation, when these event units first rolled out the thing that I noticed was that the units didn't appear to do anything Hmm as reported but what I did notice that those of us who did not get the unit had our results change relative to the unit coming out. I realize that didn't make a lot of sense... basically I couldn't help but wonder if the unit didn't actually add anything to you if you got it basically kept you at status quo but for those of us who did not get the unit our stats changed in a negative way that would reflect the difference between having the unit and not.

Perhaps also why people getting certain units were always reporting that they did not appear to do anything.

[LUEZANA]

I am at over 30K A/D. I attacked someone as low as 700 A/D and still lost units every hit even though I won. I am attacking the same people I used to attack that had less than 10K A/D and i would lose nothing. now i lose 1-3 units every time. Something has definitely changed.

[Huckleberry658]

I am only level 64' ...... I have a goal of win 7 battles with alliance of 200 or more. I was able to work my attack defense to 5500 and 6500. I've spent 25 dollars since I started. All of a sudden I wasn't getting points for the last week. In a few hundreds track wins I've prob only gotten 4 or 5 rewards , I've have gone as far as 35 wins in a row without my bonus which was supposed to be every seven wins, and I'm making sure to attack above 200. What gives?