PDA

View Full Version : Are GOLD units this game's weakest link?



chuck norris
01-05-2012, 05:52 PM
Think about it.

All the discussion about the superpowers in the highest levels. Money got most of them there. This is not the douchebag thread, or the time to complain or question or to accuse THEM for making having and spending it on the game. That has been done aplenty.

Imagine the state of the game, if all those wonderfully special gold units, had HALF of that wonderfully special power? Did Funzio create a fault line in their game by giving the gold units too much power?

Think of it this way. If the gold unit's power had been halved, would the extremes we see today be less extreme? Would the playing field be more uniform?

Chime in. Lets discuss the game aspect, not the ethics of stewardship.

Motor
01-05-2012, 07:57 PM
"If the gold unit's power had been halved, would the extremes we see today be less extreme?"
== That is very likely true. But ultimately this game is also a business for funzio. A "free to play" game, no ads, that ultimately depends on gold buyers to pay for the bandwidth, servers and workers. If the advantage to buying things with gold isn't clear cut and obvious, then fewer gold buyers. This means less revenue for funzio who still have to pay their bills.

-- For full disclosure, I am a gold buyer. But every "free" game I've played always offers a "pay for toys" option that pays for the game to exist.

---- Hmmm. I did seem to drift from the strict game aspect of your post -- sorry. But I don't see how to completely decouple the issues. If you make gold units too weak, or not clearly better, then game balance improves, but then nobody buys gold units. At half strength I can say I wouldn't have bothered. Better game balance, but then who pays for the lights to stay on???

robfdny
01-05-2012, 09:22 PM
I think SLOW and steady wins the race.... (i`d rather put the xtra money on my mortgage pmt) ...lol

Motor
01-05-2012, 09:37 PM
Also wanted to point out, I have seen some players who didn't have much, if any, gold units that I noticed, who had too much defense for me. Either they had more Def than my Att or it was so close that I'd end up losing more units. When I looked at the battle report (or whatever it's called) I realized they cost me more in units than I was making - or close enough that it was much better for me to find weaker targets.

Less wordy: You can build strong defenses without buying gold, which protects your money buildings, which makes you stronger, etc., etc.

zynshmily
01-05-2012, 11:57 PM
Also wanted to point out, I have seen some players who didn't have much, if any, gold units that I noticed, who had too much defense for me. Either they had more Def than my Att or it was so close that I'd end up losing more units. When I looked at the battle report (or whatever it's called) I realized they cost me more in units than I was making - or close enough that it was much better for me to find weaker targets.

Less wordy: You can build strong defenses without buying gold, which protects your money buildings, which makes you stronger, etc., etc.

Exactly!
If the gold units weren't so strong, it wouldn't be able to entice anyone to buy them.
Moreover, non-gold players should be able to avoid being the target of a gold player(unless you two have a history) if he/she knows how to play this game.

robfdny
01-06-2012, 07:43 AM
Exactly, keep your level low & build up your money bldgings & def b4 getting to the upper levels....

Agent Orange
01-06-2012, 09:36 AM
I think it's too late now to change the value of units, they did that with the Stealth Frigate and it was a catastrophe since it totally screwed up people's strategies. I realize that Funzio makes changes to their 'strategy' games on the fly which really sucks but I think cutting the value of the gold units at this late stage in the game is impossible since those who bought them would demand their money back. I know I would if I had purchased any.

Plus I suspect that those who are going to spend the $$ are going to anyways so it could just mean more $$ in Funzio's coffers.

chuck norris
01-06-2012, 11:29 AM
Yeah, I would never imply changing values now. Although.... It might be fun to see how people with money would attack Funzio for it....:p:p

Tramp Stamp
01-06-2012, 11:42 AM
Inflating cash/valor unit values would be the way to go if rebalancing, not cutting gold stats.

Wildfire
01-06-2012, 11:55 AM
No you can't really change the value of something people have bought, but no reason not to do the opposite though and increase the strengh of non gold units, in particular the more expensive ones:)

now why the *#~~ did just loose a 225000 Cruiser against someone less than a third of my strength:mad:

chuck norris
01-06-2012, 12:10 PM
No you can't really change the value of something people have bought, but no reason not to do the opposite though and increase the strengh of non gold units, in particular the more expensive ones:)

AHA!! I didn't even think of that! Genius. Sound general quarters. We have work to do.......:p

chuck norris
01-06-2012, 12:14 PM
I think it's too late now to change the value of units, they did that with the Stealth Frigate and it was a catastrophe since it totally screwed up people's strategies. I realize that Funzio makes changes to their 'strategy' games on the fly which really sucks but I think cutting the value of the gold units at this late stage in the game is impossible since those who bought them would demand their money back. I know I would if I had purchased any.

Plus I suspect that those who are going to spend the $$ are going to anyways so it could just mean more $$ in Funzio's coffers.

This is of course true too. But... Not all are limitless. Many spent ONLY hundreds, or even less, because of their limits. If their power had been curbed, the playing field would still end up more fair.

Agent Orange
01-06-2012, 12:26 PM
No you can't really change the value of something people have bought, but no reason not to do the opposite though and increase the strengh of non gold units, in particular the more expensive ones:)

now why the *#~~ did just loose a 225000 Cruiser against someone less than a third of my strength:mad:

Yes that is a good idea, btw I'm noticing this trend as well. Are you above L50? I notice below L50 and things seem to be more equal but over 50 and when I am attacking a much lower valued player I have some big losses almost as if the devs are trying to condition us NOT to pick on the weaker players.

Dover
01-06-2012, 12:35 PM
when I am attacking a much lower valued player I have some big losses almost as if the devs are trying to condition us NOT to pick on the weaker players.

What are the results if you attack someone more in line with your stats? Would you lose troops with lesser value? That is an interesting thought about the devs makign it so weaker players cannot be attacked like that.

chuck norris
01-06-2012, 12:45 PM
I'm below 50, and the fight list is really tight to level AND allies. give or take 10 allies, but within two levels either way. Within that range, I've seen strengths from 0 up to 900, with the average being 450. It's pretty balanced down here.

I figured the devs were doing that "conditioning" weeks ago when I was losing units big time. Then they came out and said relative strengths hove zero effect on casualties. Then we all cried BS, and then they came out about the time the list was revamped and said we have weakened casualties against lower players and now it seems they're back and someone is about to cry BS again.

It's a beautiful day.

zynshmily
01-06-2012, 01:25 PM
No you can't really change the value of something people have bought, but no reason not to do the opposite though and increase the strengh of non gold units, in particular the more expensive ones:)

now why the *#~~ did just loose a 225000 Cruiser against someone less than a third of my strength:mad:

Don't get me started... a 22,500 cruiser is nothing.
I constantly lose super hornet against someone one hundredth of my strength. Needless to say, super hornet is equally powerful as a 2 million dollars unit...

Chuck is right, devs keep changing the battle mechanics...
at a time, i won't lose units at all against puny players; later on the casualty went up drastically; then it went back to no loss... it repeats over and over.
you just need to catch up with dev's randomly alternating update.

Wildfire
01-06-2012, 02:00 PM
Yes that is a good idea, btw I'm noticing this trend as well. Are you above L50? I notice below L50 and things seem to be more equal but over 50 and when I am attacking a much lower valued player I have some big losses almost as if the devs are trying to condition us NOT to pick on the weaker players.

Mid level 47, I was doing one of those 5 in the row challenges and had found a victim who'd obviously given up on the game, so I'd confidently attacked him 4 times without loss then on the last one I lost the cruiser, so I don't know if it's just random or what but I have lost more against weaker players than usual today.

Agent Orange
01-06-2012, 02:58 PM
Mid level 47, I was doing one of those 5 in the row challenges and had found a victim who'd obviously given up on the game, so I'd confidently attacked him 4 times without loss then on the last one I lost the cruiser, so I don't know if it's just random or what but I have lost more against weaker players than usual today.

I wonder if that is going to change when you cross the threshold at level 50? The reason I mention this is that one of my brothers is also at L47 and when he attacks someone his losses are minimal if any when the other player has much lower scores.

For example I attacked someone who was an L59 w 292 allies and attack of 4431 and defense of 4683. I lost 4 units, Spectre Gunship, Border Gunship, Troop Transport and Scout on a single attack while the rival lost 1 Scout. I'm at L73 with attack of 12000 and defense of 17000!

I also find another interesting thing, When I'm approaching a goal where I gain more valor I suddenly start to loose my high value valor units! So again I suspect the game has been screwed around with so that players are enticed to buy units vs get the free ones. I also noticed these weird losses when they had the screw up with the Stealth Frigates. When they suddenly dropped the values of this unit my losses went through the roof, I lost nearly 100 in the span of a couple of days. So much so that I stopped attacking because there was something seriously odd going on. Even when the values went back up my losses were high, so much so that I stopped buying them and switched to the Super Hornets which are only slightly better. Both are still lost far to easily given how much work you do to get them.

Just seems to me that there is no point in attacking anyone since your losses are greater than your gains and if that is the case then what is the point to the game....

chuck norris
01-06-2012, 03:25 PM
There's more and more evidence that the whole system is rigged to a blatant cash-grab agenda. Intentionally frustrate your customers, to make them feel like they have to spend more?

Mr puttago and friends are no doubt refueling the tank under that BBQ again. "Dammit where's all this fire comin from anyway!?"

Agent Orange
01-06-2012, 03:38 PM
Ok so just for chuckles I'm attacking some poor sod who's a L50 with 27 allies and attack and defense under 100.

I have lost so far 1 border gunship, 1 engineer, 1 scout and just now 2 on one attack! A battle tank, transport and satellite truck granted most were freebies but....

Wildfire
01-06-2012, 05:50 PM
I wonder if that is going to change when you cross the threshold at level 50? The reason I mention this is that one of my brothers is also at L47 and when he attacks someone his losses are minimal if any when the other player has much lower scores.


Yes he's one of my allies too, his attack and defence scores are a bit better then mine at present, which may help. I was at a point where I could attack someone with 2000 less defence than my attack and usually loose nothing but that seems to have gradually shifted as I've gone from 46 to 47 and added more allies, the number of soft targets has dropped too, and I seem to be visible to players in the mid 50s now.

One thought that did occur to me is that when I loose units against a weak player it is quite often a weak player with some gold units, I wonder as well as matching overall strengths when you battle does it also do a unit v unit comparision in some way. I lost a frigate I think it was to a guy with 400 odd defence and only about 40 units, but the first half dozen of these were the lower powered gold ones.

I've been stacking up my valor points rather than using them since I started dropping units fast when attacking, When I reach the point where I can't attack without them I intend to try switching from a loot farming and PVP strategy to a PVE and defence strategy for a while and see how that works. I had stopped the PVE when I reached the Wild Basir in Marketplace which is a 9x150 Energy 30x9 Experience for a 7500-19000 payout, I reckoned a bit of loot farming would be more profitable. I also found the units I had to keep buying for PVE missions inevitably died the very next PVP attack and I had to buy them all over again negating any profit. It just seems to be balanced against trying to do both PVE and PVP at the same time. Both of course also keep pushing my rank up a bit faster than I'd really like because building is so slow.