Unfair battles?!??

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Unfair battles?!??

      Now I rise here once to speak. In my eyes there is a real problem in this game, which is also probably for many players the reason to stop here. I wrote this a few weeks ago already to Raven, but unfortunately received no response. I present here 2 Battle Reports, which took place exactly like this:

      Battle round 1
      Units Sum Destroyed Sum Destroyed
      Schakal 0 0 1 1
      Raider 0 0 1 1
      Espionage Probe 0 0 26914 26914
      Longeagle V 531 0 37 37
      Noah 0 0 1822 1822
      Longeagle X 5949 0 1043 1043
      Sentih 3590 0 204 204
      Light Laser Tower 10000 10000
      Rocket Tower 1451 1451

      Chances of Winning 100% 0%
      Chances of Espionage 0%

      --------------------------------------------------

      Kampfrunde 1
      Einheiten Anzahl vernichtet Anzahl vernichtet
      Schakal 0 0 4 4
      Spionagesonde 0 0 267 267
      Handelsschiff 0 0 10 10
      Transporter 0 0 93 93
      Tarnbomber 0 0 619 619
      Longeagle V 531 0 1140 1140
      Noah 0 0 235 235
      Longeagle X 5949 0 725 725
      Spit 0 0 3 3
      Sentih 3590 0 258 258
      Kampfdrohne 0 0 10 10
      Plasmaturm 13 13
      Raks 1 1

      Siegchance 100% 0%
      Spionagechance 0%

      ------------------------------------------------

      In my opinion it should not be possible to fight this kind. An opponent who can wipe out the entire fleet of another player without losses, it has not to give. And so it seems clear to me that the protection of smaller players is in no way provided. Yes, it's a war game, yes, I can get my fleet save, yes, yes and yes again! But honestly, there is still a real life and it can happen also unpredictable things. Above all, it must not be, however, that a superior opponent, in Example 2: attack 10:1and defending even 15.75:1, can attack. That's pure senseless bashing in my mind! There remains no chance to ever build anyway. Struggles should therefore take place at eye level and the game should not have the sense to eradicate small opponents.

      Perhaps it should be discussed to change the level of vulnerable player, that such Battle Reports are no longer be possible in the future. Every struggle with active players should bring losses for both sides.

      I hope, my English is understandable, otherwise please ask for clarification.

      MOD: I deleted the index as the player who's combat reports are shown here demands this. - Sirius Delta

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Sirius Delta ().

    • I agree with Destroyer. In my opinion you can't argue about smaller players not having any chance. If Destroyer had gained his supremacy via unfair methods (e.g. pay2win or something like that), I might agree. But still, this is a competition. And you simply can't take away the players who spend a lot of time here the profit of their "work". I never understood this discussion that is mainly started by players that build fleet without using them for what it is for: battle.

      If you participate in this game you should be aware that it affords a big amount of time and clever acting to have success. Instead of complaining about other players who use their possibilities to the max, one should think about what the own goals are and what one can do to reach them.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Sirius Delta ().

    • Noob protection is for players who are not as developed to be protected from those who spent a lot of time building up. If you chose to build a ton of troops without putting the time into building your indexes, you DESERVE to lose without doing any damage.... You have every ability to stay under the radar, by not building troops, and staying under a 10% of their point total...

      I agree with destroyer and Sirius completely

    • I do agree when you invest in research and lose the ability to make ships while doing that investment you should get a pay back
      after all you are vulnerable while you make the investment why not get a return on investment

      However i do also see the point we need to protect the weaker player
      NOTE WEAKER ACTIVE NOT INACTIVE

      That's where alliances come in

      and choosing who you want to back you up

      This game yes is simple at the basic level but like chess the more you work and look into it the more complex it becomes
      AND the more rewarding

      Today's top player may be tomorrow's top 50 after just one mistake
      tomorrows top 50 player may become next months top ten once the investment in other things stops and they change to growth

      There is no point IMHO to making it easier for those who just points whore rather than grow a complete account

      and to be fair i don't see too many active players points whoring
      as most here know how to play this game having put in over a decade learning their craft

      If some don't, go find an alliance with members who firstly do know how to, secondly want to help and protect their less experienced members and thirdly want a damn good rumble.

      There's no perfect player or perfect alliance
      but there are sure as hell a few good of both on both sides go find what fits you best and make the best of it.


      When i was a professional showjumper i always said
      Its not what the professional does
      so much as what the amuture does not do

      As in this game
      Its not what the best players do
      Its what the others don't

      Demo

    • I think what would be the obvious change is the combat system.

      Battles working in such a system that you can win 10/1 with 0 losses is not a good system.

      Just because you have a smaller amount of fleet or lower index, should not mean it should count for nothing.


      Also as food for thought, every game I have played like this has always died because one team has been too far ahead. through both legitimate and illegitimate means. it should always be that actions benefit newer / smaller players more than they do larger players for the general longevity of the server.

      Yes it is fun to win, but when you are only playing with 5 other people what is the point.

      I'm not saying destro/DT don't deserve to be top with the hard work they put in to the game, but in my opinion you should never be able to attack for 0 losses, it just doesn't make sense to me.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Jpr ().

    • do agree with no way should you be able to attack for zero losses

      The question is JPR should it be a lone wolf
      or should it be those who you choose to play with
      that make it zero losses
      clearly someone with 2000 sentihs should not be able to attack someone with just one probe

      BUT...
      what about when that someone with just one probe has gone for 3M planet and 50K research points and the one with the 2K sentihs has 20K research and 100K planet points but raiding like crazy

      two different ways to play the game and long term who can say which is right?
      after all the sentihs can be gone in one wrong battle the other always are there for the longer term

    • I agree Demo, you sacrifice speedier PERMANENT growth (buildings, research,) to build fleets (unless your a monster farmer,) and its really only troop points that pull you out of noob protection against the top players. There would be so difficult of a situation for a person with just a few troops to be attacked by the top players. That is the location on the ranks for building the basic indexes to be sure you DONT end up on the wrong side of 0 loss battles. People who chose to race into the field anyway, instead of putting the dedication and time into their account, dont really deserve more protection... I think we should work on ways to offer incentives for attacks earlier so you can grow faster as well, but putting more "protection" on people who have refused to put the effort in, just so they could build a ton of troops really doesnt sound right to me.

    • My personal opionion is, everyone is entitled to play the way they want but i think it would be also unfair to make the game even "harder" or less fair for players who spent lots of time and gave part of their life for this game/account.

      Me and destroyer for example, spent alot of time "perfecting" our accounts, a big part of our daily life, we dont farm for now, so we planned every step of our economy and every little detail. We spent also tons and tons of ress on pushing our index, so if someone else wants only to do fleet without pushing index its their own style of play. We managed to be on top with our accs without the need to farm just becouse of economy managment.

      This game is all about numbers and planning ahead.
      [Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/jV1WIIN.jpg]
      [DT] DREAM TEAM

    • Hello.

      Thats right, I agree with Jpr :)

      Battles working in such a system that you can win 10/1 with 0 losses is not a good system.
      Just because you have a smaller amount of fleet or lower index, should not mean it should count for nothing.


      I dont like combat system, combat strength. Strong players should lose (even its 10/1 or 40/1 :) ) some ships. In the near future u could see only DT members in top10, because... they will destroy enemies and will not allow to rebuild (fairy tales?) :)
      It will be more interesting.

      I'd like to write something about...
      Combat strength is so crazy. Now its Attack index * combat strength, In my opinion should be attack Index and def index * CS.
      Hypothetical situation:
      Player has 99999 planets, 1% (or 0%) CS, so his fleets dont attack, but he doesnt care. He pushes/ developes only def index. He can do it, because its so big disproportion between att and def (~6x much more). On the other hand... I could play in this way ... ;) I dont cry about CS, but we can think about it (if u want).

      Starscream says:
      we dont farm for now, so we planned every step of our economy and every little detail ​


      Ofc. u have strong acc, but I can explain this situation in few words. Main reasons:
      - small community,
      - small quantity of enemies,
      - low level of players (not everyone).

      Simple examples:
      Jonasz78, Orzech [BD]has been starting in March/ April, but ther are/ were on TOP. They started from 0. You have advantage (3-4 months). They havent chance to compete with u without farm.

      It is easy to come back. I have been playing for two months and... Im where Im :) It was simple way. I cant fight with ur high index, so I must build ships and do reserch only in that way we can rival.
      Sometimes it could be... A lot of weak ships= small quantity of ships but with good reseach, but as u know... quality over quantity :)


      Index is very important, but the most important thing (in this type of game) is... TIME.

      U dont have to agree with my opinion.

      Greetings.
      Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani?

    • I agree makaroni, but I think we should fix the problem of TIME by adding new ways to gain advancement for early players. having more paths to gaining researches, or upper levels of buildings would help to make it so people could make up ground. I think these kinds of things are planned for the future.

      Should 3000 sentih be forced to lose one just because someone has 1 espionage probe at the building, so that there is no "0 loss" battles? Thats ridiculous. At SOME POINT, there has to be a point that your attacks result in a complete sweep without loss, or thats just as stupid. Maybe it should be a little beyond 1000%, but personally I think that number is really reasonable if we implement new systems to help earlier players progress.... I dont think "protecting" even more players from attacks is the answer.

    • To be honest... I like classic Combat System :)

      Should 3000 sentih be forced to lose one just because someone has 1 espionage probe at the building, so that there is no "0 loss" battles? Thats ridiculous.

      Ofc. not. Its so stuppied.
      We have combat strength only for att, maybe we can invent combat strength for def... Its only an idea (maybe this is bad, I dont know).

      In my opinion we should talk about new system, any ideas? :)

      On the other hand, we dont have to change anything, but we can think about future and as u probablby know ... perfect solution doesnt exist :)
      Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani?

    • Dont let the conversation sound like we dont want to change. I think its more about the way we do it. You are making all valid points, and we are only trying to discuss how to incorporate them. I think for one, the system will change quite a bit when the rework is done. I know that RavenC has already stated that the significant weight toward defense will change on many units, so the combat strength will have more of an impact. We also have Colony tech to prevent hundreds of buildings :)

      Perhaps some sort of modifier to defense is in order. Maybe it can result in more researches too. It might be an interesting idea to have the combat strength applied to both, but that you can only chose one of the two researches to increase the strength of only one of the indexes. It would allow for different strategies between offensive and defensive minded players and ships. Id love to see more researches, or areas where things "branch out", so players can take advantage of only certain directions, and other people different. Examples would be Attack Index, Defense Index, Speed of troops, Consumption of troops, troop production speed, research speed, building upgrade speed. Perhaps being able to chose like two of those things to specialize in, and spend resources on researches related to, would allow for more diverse accounts, and give people joining late a chance to have a different strategy to compete....

    • If an attacker with 1000 Sentih's hits a player with ships that can't kill a Senith in 1 round, then the attacker should win without lose. That makes sense...

      If the same attacker with 1000 Sentih's hits a player with 99 Sentih's, then the attacker should take some loses because they pack a punch enough to kill something in round 1.

      In S4K Uni 1 a player called Vulak was number 3 in the highscores and was crashed by 5 smaller players smashing their fleets in to him, with this combat system he may well have survived, which doesn't make sense.

      Finally small players like to help to degrade bigger players, but can't with this combat system. The example for this is a banned player with a large fleet sat on his main. Small players could throw 100 Camo's a day at a beast in the old days and reduce that fleet ready for a big hitter, we just can't do that with this combat system.

      Love Battle power!

      Love improving your attack/defence through research (more bang for your bucks)!

      Hate the thought of losing months of work to a monster who knows he's not going to take a lose..... :(

    • Jpr wrote:


      maybe it is just us S4K oldies that can't get our heads round this system? :P



      I know for sure that the top players in this game, both in current points and title, are all oldschool players of S4K, and have worked hard to understand HOW this system works in order to create strategy from it...

      I also am pretty sure that the change in combat system that is coming will quite literally address exactly the ability to crash smaller amounts of troops into buildings and do damage. Specifically by having troops do damage to the ships they have modifiers against before normal damage is dealt.

      If a players has only 99 sentih, and another players has 1000, and these are the only troops, there is a good chance that the lower player has noob protection. I do not agree that just because the attack index of your troops totals more than the defense index of one sentih, means you should automatically kill one sentih. There must be a point at which you are attacking with enough more to not take damage. Otherwise, there will be no physical way to clear a building with a single sentih, without incurring AT LEAST as much damage... That is a really stupid situation...

      I think there are far to few attacks in this game already. Im totally against changing the system to make it LESS likely for attacks to happen....