hating the new fighting system

[Ben Weston]

as the title, losing multiple attacks against enemies with stats of 20k+ lower than yours isn't funny!!

for reference i'm talking 265k att Vs 245K, even lost a couple against 190-200k players, this is just stupid!

[Bala82]

i love the system i am losing less money

[Deadwater]

Best way to judge if you can 100% beat someone is to use your raw attack (like what you hit the boss with cash option)..you'll never lose that way

[K-Dawg]

as the title, losing multiple attacks against enemies with stats of 20k+ lower than yours isn't funny!!

for reference i'm talking 265k att Vs 245K, even lost a couple against 190-200k players, this is just stupid!

They do this to increase defensive wins, otherwise you would have close to 0. Maybe you should try either A. increasing your attack or B. attack weaker targets.

[$Heisenberg$]

as the title, losing multiple attacks against enemies with stats of 20k+ lower than yours isn't funny!!

for reference i'm talking 265k att Vs 245K, even lost a couple against 190-200k players, this is just stupid!

are u for real? dude u have less then 10% more then him. u can loose to people with 35-40% diffrence. stop whine u troll

[Ben Weston]

are u for real? dude u have less then 10% more then him. u can loose to people with 35-40% diffrence. stop whine u troll
try reading the entire post rather than trolling yourself.

[MrM]

It was worse this time...lost 4 in a row to someone 30k lower that I'd been hitting on and indeed the occasional player way lower than that...pretty random suckiness.

[brandocommando]

I usually stick to around a 20-25% rule and seems to work pretty well

[$Heisenberg$]

try reading the entire post rather than trolling yourself.

sry was to much text for me, had to filtrate

[$Heisenberg$]

make sure u have atlest 35% more then ur targets Def and u should be fine like 100k At vs 70k Def

[Alex_]

Maybe they've increased the effect of attack / defence skill points to have more influence against everyones increase in stats compared to the old system.

[BigMoney]

How is this a new system? It's comparing your stats by percentages, not raw difference. If you accept 20k as being a margin that should be insurmountable, why is it that someone with 20k total attack will never lose to 1k total defense? 265k vs. 245k is such a small margin, it's ridiculous. That's a difference of about 8%. That's almost getting to coin flip territory, and you're probably winning about 6/10 of those attacks. If you're looking for a safe target to attack, you need someone with at LEAST 25% less defense than your attack (~198k def in your case). I've lost a couple times to people with ~25% less defense than my attack, but never to people with 30% less. It works the other way too, by the way, you can occasionally win a fight against someone with a much larger defense than your attack. I've had someone with 60k less attack than my defense punch a successful attack through on me.

[Steve0]

Here is a write up from CJ on the MW forum, because they get more love than CC.


I can't share the exact algorithm, but as has been mentioned a long time ago they provide additional attack/defense that scales with your progress in the game. They don't multiply your existing stats. It is enough to swing a combat sometimes depending on your own skill points and the random element. The random element does not scale, does not differ from player to player or combat to combat (it is a general design policy around here that things the players cannot control or affect are at least consistent across the board, in the name of fairness).

Here, I'll share a big secret (about games in general) that explains why we don't share the exact skill point algorithm or the exact numbers on the random combat element, and why we have those in the game in the first place:

Complete knowledge of whether you are going to win or lose a conflict leads to that conflict becoming boring very rapidly. This is not just true in our games, but in general. On a very fundamental level, games are about growing or learning or adjusting or changing or having weight to your choices, and without that dynamism and uncertainty you cannot grow or learn or adjust or change. Your choices have no weight. It gets boring, and you end up doing something else that DOES provide you with that stimulus. Anyone who has played a video game on "god mode" before should know what I'm talking about; you rampage through for a little while, and that's fun for a few minutes or an hour, but then the spark that got you playing in the first place is gone and you can't get it back.

What I'm saying is, "I can *probably* or even *almost certainly* beat this challenge and win, but there's a chance I might not" is where actual fun happens. This is almost certainly true in life as well as games, and very probably part of the survival drive package that led us to (for the most part) stop clubbing each other with sticks over perceived differences and (eventually) start arguing about them on the internet instead. I'm not saying that every single thing has to be an uphill struggle through mud and live fire, just that there has to be SOME level of uncertainty.

Different games go about setting up the required dynamism in different ways. In Chess or Go, there are a ridiculous number of potential moves at any given time (at least in the opening and mid-game, but often the end-game as well); combine this with the fact that you cannot read your opponent's mind and you have that golden uncertainty (which you can minimize with good tactics and knowledge of the situations that can arise. But you can't ever completely eliminate it).

Then there is randomness. Pertinent example: In most RPGs (dating all the way back to Gary Gygax's first tabletop combat simulations), you have dice or other randomness determining some combat elements. A theoretical longsword CAN do 8 points of damage, but it may only do 1. Or it may get a critical hit and get somewhere between 2 and 16. Does that make a longsword better or worse than using a dagger in each hand, which may do 2-8 with a more consistent damage spread, at the cost of two chances to miss entirely instead of just one? Regardless of weapon, is it a "better" decision to go after the weak goblins before they swarm you, or try to take out the potentially-much more-dangerous troll first? The "rightness" of those choices is dependent on the other choices you are making in the game, and even then you can only minimize the uncertainty, not completely eliminate it.

Most modern games mix those elements to some degree, and so do ours. We try to provide a spread of different potential choices in the meta-game. Which choices are "correct" should be somewhat dependent on where the player is and what they want to do. In regards to combat, what we WANT to provide is that situation that I mentioned above: "I'm pretty sure I can win, but there's a chance I may not. So do I go through with it or look for another target?" Not ALL the time (you should have the experience of "I can crush this chump" sometimes, as well as "Yeah, there's no way I can win this one, I'm going to pick a better target"). Setting this up correctly is way more complicated than it sounds, especially since the actual spread of personal power can change rapidly based on our players, well, playing the game.

The area where we could have done much better on this is in MESSAGING the uncertainty element of combat to our players. We know that. We've long been brainstorming ways to get that same sort of feeling into combat (the slight uncertainty) in a more integrated way. That potential way also has to not rock the boat too much; there have been a number of times that we have released a change to a game which is positive for the players both in terms of their success in the game and the UI, and it was received very poorly because it was too drastic a departure from the original presentation. If anyone who has read this far has any suggestions on improving the basic combat mechanic to make it more exciting, please feel free to speak up as the opinion is welcome.

Anyway, the point is, these things (and all changes that we make that aren't technical necessities) are here to keep people enjoying the game, or to give them new ways to enjoy the game. That's the goal. As I said in the first post, no players, no game. That is the baseline truth from which all design decisions spring. Sometimes we hit the mark and sometimes we miss, but the goal is always more engagement.

[Steve0]

During war I lost to 60k-80k less than my stats. Its screwed up but I have no control over it.

[Dipstik]

try reading the entire post rather than trolling yourself.


are u for real? dude u have less then 10% more then him. u can loose to people with 35-40% diffrence. stop whine u troll

Neither of you know what that word means.

[scott(ST6)]

make sure u have atlest 35% more then ur targets Def and u should be fine like 100k At vs 70k Def

Are you CCC Heisenberg in cc?

[$Heisenberg$]

Are you CCC Heisenberg in cc?

No just Heisenberg

[BigMoney]

No just Heisenberg

Did I hit you a few days ago? There are a lot of Heisenbergs.

[Chica]

This and recently like as of a day ago I've been being paired with people with way higher stats which I don't have an issue with but I used to lose one in every like 30fights now it seems gree is only pairing me with people who crush my state without even trying so now it seems like my win loss has reversed very odd
I also love losing to those who have like 35 k defense less then my attack.

[PawnXIIX]

The ridiculous part of this is that people with a million attack can theoretically lose to players with 700k defense.

[Gunflame]

Well I don't feel much of a change, but boy do a lot of people in my syndicate get ticked off about losing to people their much higher than lol

[Chica]

It seems like they applied the mw attack system without showing the fluctuating art/def like they do there. Shame really on the plus side maybe they will add the "rank"system if they do we could see more rival attack type goals between wars instead of all these ltq.

[Lurker]

Great find.

And, I agree with this too.

..."MW forum, because they get more love than CC."


Here is a write up from CJ on the MW forum, because they get more love than CC.


I can't share the exact algorithm, but as has been mentioned a long time ago they provide additional attack/defense that scales with your progress in the game. They don't multiply your existing stats. It is enough to swing a combat sometimes depending on your own skill points and the random element. The random element does not scale, does not differ from player to player or combat to combat (it is a general design policy around here that things the players cannot control or affect are at least consistent across the board, in the name of fairness).

Here, I'll share a big secret (about games in general) that explains why we don't share the exact skill point algorithm or the exact numbers on the random combat element, and why we have those in the game in the first place:

Complete knowledge of whether you are going to win or lose a conflict leads to that conflict becoming boring very rapidly. This is not just true in our games, but in general. On a very fundamental level, games are about growing or learning or adjusting or changing or having weight to your choices, and without that dynamism and uncertainty you cannot grow or learn or adjust or change. Your choices have no weight. It gets boring, and you end up doing something else that DOES provide you with that stimulus. Anyone who has played a video game on "god mode" before should know what I'm talking about; you rampage through for a little while, and that's fun for a few minutes or an hour, but then the spark that got you playing in the first place is gone and you can't get it back.

What I'm saying is, "I can *probably* or even *almost certainly* beat this challenge and win, but there's a chance I might not" is where actual fun happens. This is almost certainly true in life as well as games, and very probably part of the survival drive package that led us to (for the most part) stop clubbing each other with sticks over perceived differences and (eventually) start arguing about them on the internet instead. I'm not saying that every single thing has to be an uphill struggle through mud and live fire, just that there has to be SOME level of uncertainty.

Different games go about setting up the required dynamism in different ways. In Chess or Go, there are a ridiculous number of potential moves at any given time (at least in the opening and mid-game, but often the end-game as well); combine this with the fact that you cannot read your opponent's mind and you have that golden uncertainty (which you can minimize with good tactics and knowledge of the situations that can arise. But you can't ever completely eliminate it).

Then there is randomness. Pertinent example: In most RPGs (dating all the way back to Gary Gygax's first tabletop combat simulations), you have dice or other randomness determining some combat elements. A theoretical longsword CAN do 8 points of damage, but it may only do 1. Or it may get a critical hit and get somewhere between 2 and 16. Does that make a longsword better or worse than using a dagger in each hand, which may do 2-8 with a more consistent damage spread, at the cost of two chances to miss entirely instead of just one? Regardless of weapon, is it a "better" decision to go after the weak goblins before they swarm you, or try to take out the potentially-much more-dangerous troll first? The "rightness" of those choices is dependent on the other choices you are making in the game, and even then you can only minimize the uncertainty, not completely eliminate it.

Most modern games mix those elements to some degree, and so do ours. We try to provide a spread of different potential choices in the meta-game. Which choices are "correct" should be somewhat dependent on where the player is and what they want to do. In regards to combat, what we WANT to provide is that situation that I mentioned above: "I'm pretty sure I can win, but there's a chance I may not. So do I go through with it or look for another target?" Not ALL the time (you should have the experience of "I can crush this chump" sometimes, as well as "Yeah, there's no way I can win this one, I'm going to pick a better target"). Setting this up correctly is way more complicated than it sounds, especially since the actual spread of personal power can change rapidly based on our players, well, playing the game.

The area where we could have done much better on this is in MESSAGING the uncertainty element of combat to our players. We know that. We've long been brainstorming ways to get that same sort of feeling into combat (the slight uncertainty) in a more integrated way. That potential way also has to not rock the boat too much; there have been a number of times that we have released a change to a game which is positive for the players both in terms of their success in the game and the UI, and it was received very poorly because it was too drastic a departure from the original presentation. If anyone who has read this far has any suggestions on improving the basic combat mechanic to make it more exciting, please feel free to speak up as the opinion is welcome.

Anyway, the point is, these things (and all changes that we make that aren't technical necessities) are here to keep people enjoying the game, or to give them new ways to enjoy the game. That's the goal. As I said in the first post, no players, no game. That is the baseline truth from which all design decisions spring. Sometimes we hit the mark and sometimes we miss, but the goal is always more engagement.