PDA

View Full Version : a fair warning to gold players...



zynshmily
12-20-2011, 08:26 PM
Recently, i've discovered a conspiracy, which may benefit someone who's about to expand their armies.
First of all, i dont need some lower-than-4k-attack players lecture me about the randomness of casualty, because you guys have no idea what i'm talking about.
In short, the hidden trap is that the more excessive units you have, the more easily you lose your units.
It's like you have too many unused soldiers, so they deserve to die since you can't bring them to a war.
I'm drawing on my own experience. I used to keep a perfect balance between my level and the size of my army. I distinctively remember i was level 45 with around 920 units. 'til lv49, the number of units always corresponded closely to the largest number of army i can bring to the battlefield. Everything was perfect, i hardly lost units.
I really can't stress "hardly" enough. Statistically speaking, losing 2 units per 60 battles (tops). (Just FYI, my attack was 8k+ and i tended to pick ppl with less than 1.5k def)
Everything changed when i was level 49 with 1350 units. I can lose some precious units by beating up a 1000-defense. not only do the many excessive units not make the fights more lucrative, they become a huge burden. They make your army vulnerable as hell when attacking.
I've confirmed this situation with several ppl. they all have the same feeling as me (more or less).
The reason i call this a hidden trap is because only whales will have so many excessive units. Once they kno you've got money, they wanna suck you dry. so this is ****ing rigged...they deliberately make you lose units to encourage you to keep recharging...
i deeply regret that i exchange 40K valor for super hornet... now my army size went down from 1400 to 1200...during the battles in which a 11K attack/def vs 1.5k attack/def.
miss the good old days that my army size increased by 100 out of loots(without any purchasing units with cash or gold)...
im not just saying this to complain or criticize. I just want you to know, we are not idiots. We are fully aware what your are doing. We let you get your way because we support this game. even with such lame setting... this kinda game on a mobile device is really handy and addictive...

chuck norris
12-20-2011, 09:29 PM
I agree. They changed the game on us. This game we are playing now is not the game I spent money on. I want the game I WAS playing BACK, or I want my money back. Fukn A.

ronpaul
12-20-2011, 11:49 PM
The problem is, people like you, even learning this, would continue playing :D

HGF69
12-21-2011, 02:28 AM
Anyone care to explain this in plain English?

You saying buy 600/1000 troops?

zynshmily
12-21-2011, 07:41 AM
k. in simple eng, suppose you have sufficient allies:
keep the size of your army no more than 20 times your lvl...
e.g. if your are lv40, the number of your units better be 800-ish. if you have more than 1100 units, the mortality is insane...

eb0nyknight
12-21-2011, 09:00 AM
I am going to test that theory. I am going to attack others and take the casualties and see. I think I have enough money and with people not attacking these days, it shouldn't be a problem.

I did just start and I lost two high value units and a mostly infantry (infantry is what I have most of). Lost about 18 units and my attk/def, went down, but I am not down to the 4 per ally yet. It will be interesting to see if the amount of casualties suddenly drops when I reach that point or some other.

Oh, BTW I am already below that 20x units by level threshold.

zynshmily
12-21-2011, 10:49 AM
Great! While you are at it, there is another thing you can test on.
Thats about high-end units.
high-end units are referred to the ones produced in Elite training facility/robotics/adv. airbase/dry docks.
when i was lv49 without any high-end units, everything was going really well.
when i was lv50 with 120 super hornet(a high-end,350 valor/each), my low-end units started dying like insane.
i wonder if high-end unit is a determinant...
BTW, even tho you may nt care about money that much, dont spend too much on this game...
I spent 500 over the first 3 days of playing, i reached lv55 with 12k attk/def within 5days. Now i regret it...its addicting at first, then it starts to disappoint you...

BenZozzy
12-21-2011, 07:42 PM
I spent 500 over the first 3 days of playing..

What on earth possessed you to spend that kind of $ on the game can i ask?

My wife would castrate me if i did that ****...

zynshmily
12-21-2011, 11:47 PM
My wife would castrate me if i did that ****...

haha. well. for starters, i dont have a wife.
More importantly, I need something to play in bed, so does my gf.
she'd rather i spend money on a game than a hooker...

Tramp Stamp
12-22-2011, 12:16 AM
Sadly a hooker might be cheaper.

CoachPappy
12-22-2011, 12:23 AM
So what you are saying tramp is that with a hooker he might get a little more bang for his buck?

Tramp Stamp
12-22-2011, 12:39 AM
Well, what would you rather have, an around the world or 3 Yamato Battleships? Captain Okita(s) not included.

Viduus
12-22-2011, 06:53 AM
I just saw my mortality rate take a big jump after adding a number of allies. I still win the fights but now I'm losing units MUCH more frequently where I rarely if ever had casualties before. (low Allie to level ratio). I think your on to something with this thread.

eb0nyknight
12-22-2011, 08:04 AM
Well, I have been doing what I said. Still losing a unit or two per attack. I am at level 15 with 186 pieces, so the theory about 20x level is bunk. Still haven't made it down to the 4x allies though. I have a feeling my casualties will abate once I reach that level, if anything will work.

My att/def is definite taking a hit though. down to 615/677, but still far above anyone else I have come across. Still losing mostly low level units (mostly infantry) with an occasional valor unit or medium unit. I would say it's about 20-30% medium or valor units, with only one or two valor units lost in 13 attacks.

BTW, I meant spend in game money. I don't buy gold on this or CC.

Agent Orange
12-22-2011, 09:54 AM
So what you are saying tramp is that with a hooker he might get a little more bang for his buck?

Don't give the Devs any ideas, next thing you know we will have hookers as limited time gold units. They embed themselves in the rival army and wipe it out by introducing and STD.

Dover
12-22-2011, 10:11 AM
Or, or you will get to build a new money building. Level 1 Brothel, 2,999 Gold to buy and collects 10% more than any weapons building ever could. Bonus feature, there is a cute little woman in high heels walking around the building.

frenda
12-22-2011, 01:44 PM
Dover, I'm on board with that "upgrade". :) Funny thread and good info. I think Ebony misunderstood, or I did. It's 4x the number of allies, not the number of level that determines max troops in an engagement. I don't see any reason to have more troops than you can fight with. And there's no reason to have tons of allies until you get higher in levels either. I haven't found that sweet spot yet, but I'm mostly losing one or two scouts and very rarely losing higher quality troops or valor units. Just my 2 cents worth.

eb0nyknight
12-22-2011, 06:00 PM
You misunderstood.

The "theory" is that anything over 20x your level will cause excessive casualties. I have already dis proven that, anecdotally.

I think it is as the game tells us. 4x the number of allies for equipment. I am almost down to that so I will see if it is true.
-----
Well so far, it's not working. I have casualties. It doesn't seem to be as many, but I haven't done enough attacks to come to any conclusion.

zynshmily
12-22-2011, 06:42 PM
@eb0nyknight First, we obviously have different definition of "far above". when your att/def is 600-ish, you can only expect zero mortality in a confrontation with a 120-ish.
Thats the theory of my part. it hasn't been confirmed analytically of course, however, its empirically true.
when i was lv40, my attack was about 5.5k, and i always attacked those with 1000 defense. i lost 1-2 units every 60 fights.
needless to say, i always keep the size of my practical army as big as possible . when lv15, 300 is an ideal number. lv15 with 186 units is a joke...look at the topic of this thread...i did point out "gold players" , didnt i?
keep one thing in mind, your play style is lower than average, you have no right to overpower someone with zero casualty.
keep one thing in mind, unless you are 5 times more powerful than your opponent, don't expect zero casualty at all.
also, attack and defense dont seem to work simultaneously. when you are the attacker, only focus on your attack and your opponent's defense. so, according to your play style, no need to keep balance between attack and defense. buy some low-attack high-defense units. when i was 3000 att/def, i lost to someone whose att/defense were 1000/4000. u get the point.

zynshmily
12-22-2011, 07:05 PM
I'd like to sum it up.
First, i'm a gold player who always keeps my army practically as strong as possible. e.g. when lv20, my army size won't be lower than 400; when level 40, army size is around 800.
i always strictly follow the alliance-army ratio rule. i hate waste. it's stupid that you have 1000 units while you can only bring 500 units to the battlefield.
From lv1 through lv49, everything was perfect...i won 3000+ fights and lost less than 30. I got more than 250 loots while lost no more than 100 units.
everything went south when i reached lv50 and exchanged 40k valor for super hornet.
My stat became lv50, 11k att/def, 1300 units. i still attack those with around 1.5k defense.(not proud tho...lol)
BUT the mortality became very uncanny... basically, one unit down every fight. i was really pissed and frustrated. so i started digging.
i consult a few ppl, they gave me the idea that lv50 was a threshold. the insane mortality is a high-lv vs. low-lv penalty. i ruled that out by attacking a lv60 of 1.3k att/def. i still suffer mass casualty. so this level thing is not the key.
then it's either about the 300 excessive units or the combination of high-ends and low-ends.
you c, for a lv50, only 1000 units are effective, but i have 1300, is this what caused the high mortality?
also, before lv50, i dont have any high-ends.(those produced in elite training facility/robotics/adv.air base/dry docks)...is it because i now have both low-ends and high-ends in my troop that makes the low-ends extremely vulnerable???
Im still exploring. If anyone has insightful understanding, i'd appreciate it if you can share.

Agent Orange
12-22-2011, 09:43 PM
I'll pop in a bit of data here, I'm about to attack someone who is L35 with 584 allies, 618 units, 1655 attack, 1825 defense. I am L65, 626 allies, 1743 units, 10788 attack, 14053 defense.

Attack #1, I win. But loose 3 units, 1 scout, 1 oil destroyer, 1 Eagle Fighter 12/9!
Rival looses 1 Engineer, and 1 Medic.

Attack #2 I win with zero losses. Rival looses 1 scout and 1 army truck.

I'll stop, don't want the poor fellow to think it's personal.... but that first attack was pretty costly considering the stats and these heavy losses are what we have been seeing lately.

Also as someone else pointed out, I am also seeing weird results in my sitreps each morning. A lot of loose the first attack, then win the second and quite often the attacker is taken off guard and winds up depositing a good chunk of change to boot because they haven't put the cash in their vault.

K Dawg
12-22-2011, 10:03 PM
Sadly a hooker might be cheaper.

that is some funny ****... yes, playing with your right hand should be cheap and easy. LOL!!

zynshmily
12-23-2011, 12:19 AM
that is some funny ****... yes, playing with your right hand should be cheap and easy. LOL!!
cheap, easy and no contraceptives...
moreover, when you are tired of right hand, try switching hands. feels like a total stranger.

eb0nyknight
12-23-2011, 04:56 AM
@eb0nyknight First, we obviously have different definition of "far above". when your att/def is 600-ish, you can only expect zero mortality in a confrontation with a 120-ish.
Thats the theory of my part. it hasn't been confirmed analytically of course, however, its empirically true.
when i was lv40, my attack was about 5.5k, and i always attacked those with 1000 defense. i lost 1-2 units every 60 fights.
needless to say, i always keep the size of my practical army as big as possible . when lv15, 300 is an ideal number. lv15 with 186 units is a joke...look at the topic of this thread...i did point out "gold players" , didnt i?
keep one thing in mind, your play style is lower than average, you have no right to overpower someone with zero casualty.


So what's your explanation when I attack someone with 80 defense and I get the same results as when i attack someone with 300 def??????

What does having gold have to do with anything unless you are venting because you feel like a sucker?

You may believe in your theory, but it doesn't play out. It doesn't matter whether you are level 50 or 5, unless you are saying that the programmers put that in the algorithm. Again, you have no support for that. I am trying to do an objective test as to what maybe the cause of these casualties, you on the other hand have pulled some theory out of air and are clinging to it like a bum with a bottle, when you have no evidence for it's support.

To each their own.

Looks like (anecdotally) neither of our theories pan out. I am below the 4 per unit threshold and I am still losing 1-2 units per attack, regardless of the enemy army defense.

Djin
12-23-2011, 05:34 AM
I am playing as the Chinese and I too have noticed now that I've hit level 15, all the people I usually had no problem attacking, now all of a sudden I lose several troops almost on every attack. I have attacked people two levels below me with a lot fewer alliances and lost. I have attacked people the same level and lost. I won 230 out of 287 missions, and now all of a sudden my lost jumped from a few to now 71.

I noticed that the higher I get in levels, the more troops I lose. This is frustrating when I have 100+ of a lot of foot troops and I get the **** kicked out of me by a handful of ragtags and some bull**** player who has a base that looks like something you'd find in Iraq.

This game needs to seriously fix this type of ****. My military couldn't be touched, and now all of a sudden it's like my military started to fight with sticks and bubble wrap.

zynshmily
12-23-2011, 09:24 AM
you on the other hand have pulled some theory out of air and are clinging to it like a bum with a bottle, when you have no evidence for it's support.

Are you selectively blind?
I list bunch of numbers to illustrate what happened.
again. lv45-lv49, my army strictly fit the biggest capacity. No excess. And i fought more than 500 battles. The average loss was 1-2 units for every 60 battles. What does that tell ya?
Plus, the part that baffled me was when my army surpassed the biggest capacity.
if you have any sense of logic, the deducible assumption is "excessive units make the troop vulnerable." ur army is way below the capacity, its not even your case...
Who the hell cares about your under-sized army????if u wanna discuss rationally, your more than welcome. if you wanna meddle with your own petty experiment, you are on your own....

Just FYI, i dont believe in ostentatious display of wealth, especially in a virtual game where no one can even recognize my face. I have some spare money and i dont like being a loser, thats all. If i couldn't afford to spend a little on a game, i wouldn't be playing games at all. i'd have far more serious things to consider in real life.

zynshmily
12-23-2011, 09:39 AM
Looks like (anecdotally) neither of our theories pan out. I am below the 4 per unit threshold and I am still losing 1-2 units per attack, regardless of the enemy army defense.

I suggest you refer back to #20... which you may have missed. what you are exploring is not that related to my subject... i never mention anything about "blow the 4 per unit threshold", nor do i want to care. that doesn't concern me.
I am interested in knowing what is the reason that leads to the phenomenon that my army becomes much stronger, but the mortality is significantly increased.(of course, the opponents are equally weak...)
it doesn't make any sense to me!!! if you have any proposals about that, im all ears.

Agent Orange
12-23-2011, 09:41 AM
Zy, I'm starting to suspect this player is at a much lower level than we are so his data is incomplete.

zynshmily
12-23-2011, 09:53 AM
@eb0nyknight
a little logic lesson here. You CANNOT take the converse for granted!
Just because i said "excessive army is vulnerable", You can't draw the conclusion that "insufficient army is solid."
your viable contradiction could be "excessive army doesnt correlate to high casualty". your ground of argument could be " you are level 15 with 400 units, and you barely lose units". that is something which can get me into thinking it over...
suppose you and i are walking on a street. you point at a lady and tell me "she's not my mom." Does that give me the information to believe that "she is your daddy"???
you cant disprove something by showing its converse is wrong...

zynshmily
12-23-2011, 10:02 AM
Zy, I'm starting to suspect this player is at a much lower level than we are so his data is incomplete.
who cares... the casualty in this game is a damn mysterious puzzler...its changing more irregularly than my GF's cycle of menstrual period...
I just noticed one crazy man...
Stephen, a lv76 with 48K attack and 44k defense, swings by my base on a daily basis... wonder how much he spends...

ronpaul
12-23-2011, 09:27 PM
I wish i could believe you were telling the truth.

Agent Orange
12-23-2011, 10:03 PM
who cares... the casualty in this game is a damn mysterious puzzler...its changing more irregularly than my GF's cycle of menstrual period...
I just noticed one crazy man...
Stephen, a lv76 with 48K attack and 44k defense, swings by my base on a daily basis... wonder how much he spends...

I care only because it can account for the lack of information this person has. But yes the devs keep screwing with the game so formulating a strategy is near impossible.

Yeah he visits mine as well, he's bored because there is nothing left to do but sit and watch your base grow. He also looses 1-3 high value units each time vs a scout.

Speed ump
12-24-2011, 04:49 PM
This is Stephen, and yes I have spent a really crazy amount. The game appears to be all about attack and building bigger armies and defenses. There is another Player, JVJK, who I now believe is one of the developers, can attack others even when he is weakened, and is able to use all his units even though he does not have enough allies to justify it. At least I am for real. I built up trying to defeat this guy. I found he was able to add units far quicker than I could buy more gold and units also. It appears the developers are laughing all the way to the bank on that one. I do add everyone that requests to be an ally, at least so far. I just started playing 3 weeks ago, so I don't know what the game was like before that.

Djin
12-24-2011, 07:02 PM
This is Stephen, and yes I have spent a really crazy amount. The game appears to be all about attack and building bigger armies and defenses. There is another Player, JVJK, who I now believe is one of the developers, can attack others even when he is weakened, and is able to use all his units even though he does not have enough allies to justify it. At least I am for real. I built up trying to defeat this guy. I found he was able to add units far quicker than I could buy more gold and units also. It appears the developers are laughing all the way to the bank on that one. I do add everyone that requests to be an ally, at least so far. I just started playing 3 weeks ago, so I don't know what the game was like before that.

It's disgusting to see units at 550 gold and you have to spend $40 on 650 gold. All other games I've played allow you to earn a small amount of gold by doing silly things (signing up for webpages, etc).

I can't believe one unit is like $40. It's sad too because you're right, the developers won't address a lot of issues and they are laughing to the bank.

Is there an option to see how many people are playing?

Speed ump
12-24-2011, 08:12 PM
I agree. I think we should be able to win some gold, and those who want to go faster can pay more.they charge far too much for the gold, I think more people would play more if the costs were more reasonable, though obviously there are a few like me who do pay the crazy prices.

Agent Orange
12-24-2011, 08:18 PM
This is Stephen, and yes I have spent a really crazy amount. The game appears to be all about attack and building bigger armies and defenses. There is another Player, JVJK, who I now believe is one of the developers, can attack others even when he is weakened, and is able to use all his units even though he does not have enough allies to justify it. At least I am for real. I built up trying to defeat this guy. I found he was able to add units far quicker than I could buy more gold and units also. It appears the developers are laughing all the way to the bank on that one. I do add everyone that requests to be an ally, at least so far. I just started playing 3 weeks ago, so I don't know what the game was like before that.

There is another player at an even higher level that I have suspected is a dev as well, otherwise they have spent several thousand dollars on the game. I think they have them at several levels in the game one for sure in the lower level that wasn't leveling up until I pointed them out a couple of weeks ago. They seem to act like the rabbit in a greyhound race.

The game is all about attacking which is broken and taking a long time to build a base. Eventually you do come to the conclusion that there is no point to the game.

Viduus
12-26-2011, 07:52 AM
I'm a gold player as well. Though I learned my lesson from a similar game "star command" by play mesh. Hackers took over the game and caused "inflation". All of us top players had spent > 1k and had it end up meaningless the next day. I pay for this game but never as much as before. Sadly it all comes down to trusting the debs will step in and keep doing the right thing.