Attacking is more broken than I thought

[Agent Orange]

Someone else posted about problems with attacking and loosing even though they were more powerful. Our group has been testing this out over the past day and it does appear that there is a big problem doing multiple attacks on the same player. Even with a 2x tactical advantage we have discovered on the second attack that the odds of loosing are much higher.

Now you could say that it could be because you lost a high value unit on the first go around. Problem is in several instances this happened even though the attacker did not loose any units during the first fight.

And this also seems to occur more often when doing the consecutive win challenge which sets you back to 0 every time. Not even going to bother posting this in Technical because this may be an intentional change.

[chuck norris]

At this point, There only seems to be one conclusion. Everything about the game is intentional. It isn't bugs were talking about. It's numerical factors. They want it like this. Is it safe to conclude the reason is it is generating cash? Kinda like the in the movies. Create and spread a disease to create demand for the cure. Wonderful. And a happy new year too.

[chuck norris]

Just curious. You said 2x tactical advantage. Did that include the multiplier factor too? Or just the Actual alliance strength?

[frenda]

The more you attack the same rival, the more you lose in attack strength. Unless you post some specific situations, it's hard to draw conclusions. I've also been plussing up on the attack and defense skill points, and I'm not getting beaten anymore. I think those points make a big difference that's the x factor you can't see when looking at a rival's profile.

[Agent Orange]

The more you attack the same rival, the more you lose in attack strength. Unless you post some specific situations, it's hard to draw conclusions. I've also been plussing up on the attack and defense skill points, and I'm not getting beaten anymore. I think those points make a big difference that's the x factor you can't see when looking at a rival's profile.

As far as we can tell the only way you should be loosing attack strength is when you loose units during the attack. The problem is that no units are lost so the attack strength should not have dropped or is there some other undocumented feature in the game?

I've also beefed up my attack and skill points with an emphasis on defense. 54 attack, 69 defense at L65 and I find that at my level the defense pts can make anywhere between 1000-2000 difference on my defense score. That could be part of the problem here but as I said we aren't loosing units during the attack so what hidden parameter has changed?

[Agent Orange]

Just curious. You said 2x tactical advantage. Did that include the multiplier factor too? Or just the Actual alliance strength?

The percentage for specific countries? Yes that was factored in if applicable, that could have made a difference but the real problem we are having is that our attack strength should not have changed.

The only thing that occurs to me is that perhaps the defender has lost lower value units and somehow the game averaged in a higher value one? Perhaps a reverse effect of meat shielding? But that is the only thing I can think of that might have caused this to happen other than the devs are screwing with us again.

[rarry13]

why is it that when I attack rival I lose but when attacking his buildings I win juast do not under stand also I have him out match in all areas

[eb0nyknight]

Im not having any problems winning fights. I have stock piled a few thousand valor from attacking and haven't lost in two or three weeks. The only problem I am having is losing 1 or 2 units per attack.

Your att, must not be high enough or your unit quality is low.

[Agent Orange]

Im not having any problems winning fights. I have stock piled a few thousand valor from attacking and haven't lost in two or three weeks. The only problem I am having is losing 1 or 2 units per attack.

Your att, must not be high enough or your unit quality is low.

The quality of units did cross my mind as that might be the problem but not with the attacker since their data is static eg they did not loose the first attack or ANY units! Yet they loose the second attack.

Now in my crew non of us have any gold units but I have a lot of high value valor units which also tend to get killed off quicker than normal. Right now I have 87 Super Hornets and 138 Stealth Frigates. At one time I had almost 200 Stealth Frigates and these things would get killed off really fast. My attack is over 10k.

It does feel like the game is changing the mix in terms of units during combat and that is something we will need to watch, mainly what happens with what units rivals loose.

[Wildfire]

Looking back over my news feed from the last couple of days when I'm attacked by much stronger players sometimes I lose the first attack win the second and lose the 3rd or seemingly any combination, that can't be explained simply on unit loss on each attack. I think there must be a random factor added on top of all the other weighting factors in each battle, not enough to cause a double strength player to lose to you but enough to make someone say a third stronger stand a chance of losing to you.

[Agent Orange]

Yes we are seeing this oddity as well, loose the first attack but win the second. It could have something to do with unit losses, see my other post in the gold thread and my observation of an attack on a 5x weaker player. My unit looses were very high considering how much more attack value I had. That could be what is going on here, the player wins the first but looses a fair bit of fire power so looses the second attack. You loose more on the second attack so they win the third. Still it seems to not be very consistent.

[Wildfire]

Just attacked someone 5 times in a row (sorry just wanted to test this out), both of us level 33 with 50-60 allies both UK, 510 defence against my 1150 attack. I won all rounds with the following unit losses, round 1 Fighter Jet, round 2 Warthog, round 3 Frigate, round 4 Bradley, round 5 Sniper. So 107k of units lost, opponent lost none, 140 Valour points and 1 satellite truck earned. So I lost 1 high, 3 medium and 1 very low units, not much correlation there.

I think it has to be a random number with a weighting factor as to what you lose otherwise the Frigate should never have been lost with hundreds of other higher loss rate units to choose from. Interestingly I'd no double losses and no rounds with no losses both of which I tend to get against an opponent of more equal strength.

So is a 107k loss worth 140 valour, well if you don't fight why play at all!

Just to finish an operation I attacked someone with 610 defence and lost a submarine and a Frigate together, 66k and 34k in one go against someone half my strength, come on!!!!!

[Djin]

Just attacked someone 5 times in a row (sorry just wanted to test this out), both of us level 33 with 50-60 allies both UK, 510 defence against my 1150 attack. I won all rounds with the following unit losses, round 1 Fighter Jet, round 2 Warthog, round 3 Frigate, round 4 Bradley, round 5 Sniper. So 107k of units lost, opponent lost none, 140 Valour points and 1 satellite truck earned. So I lost 1 high, 3 medium and 1 very low units, not much correlation there.

I think it has to be a random number with a weighting factor as to what you lose otherwise the Frigate should never have been lost with hundreds of other higher loss rate units to choose from. Interestingly I'd no double losses and no rounds with no losses both of which I tend to get against an opponent of more equal strength.

So is a 107k loss worth 140 valour, well if you don't fight why play at all!

Just to finish an operation I attacked someone with 610 defence and lost a submarine and a Frigate together, 66k and 34k in one go against someone half my strength, come on!!!!!

This type of **** happens to me all the time. I will lose some of my best units to someone that doesn't even have Jeeps. It's almost sickening.

[chuck norris]

Did you say 140 valor for five attacks? What am I missing here?

[Wildfire]

Did you say 140 valor for five attacks? What am I missing here?

Relax you're missing nothing Chuck, the valour points came from both an Invasion and a Total War operation that I completed with the attacks. The Total War ones where you need successive wins really do encourage beating up on weak players, but that's another story!