Terrible losses...what did you do (again) Gree ?? - Page 2

GREE

GREE Forum - Powered by vBulletin
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 86

Thread: Terrible losses...what did you do (again) Gree ??

  1. #16
    Steady Scribe
    Member Since
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arkansas, USA
    Post Count
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopenshire View Post
    I have been postings examples of this for months. I lose >2000 valor in a single action many times. look back at some of my old posts and threads. I have been documenting this a long time. its not new and its just a money trap to get everyone to buy golden units.
    ....Bingo!

  2. #17
    Consistent Contributor
    Member Since
    May 2012
    Location
    Montreal
    Post Count
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopenshire View Post
    I have been postings examples of this for months. I lose >2000 valor in a single action many times. look back at some of my old posts and threads. I have been documenting this a long time. its not new and its just a money trap to get everyone to buy golden units.
    Nope, this is not what I was talking about. I know this and that is why I adapted my strategy ever since. I would only attack players with either below 10 k defense or less than 600 units, so I did not lose a single unit. But since last week, Gree makes you lose units even if you go below that threshold ! This is what has changed.

  3. #18
    Banned
    Member Since
    Aug 2012
    Post Count
    241
    This is the huge reason I don't PvP any more because I lose huge powerful units each attack. Anywhere to 3-4 units each attack.

  4. #19
    Banned
    Member Since
    Mar 2012
    Location
    College Station Texas
    Post Count
    3,494
    Quote Originally Posted by vaporeon View Post
    This is the huge reason I don't PvP any more because I lose huge powerful units each attack. Anywhere to 3-4 units each attack.
    I have seen your units. You losing much of anything is a huge loss.

  5. #20
    Banned
    Member Since
    Mar 2012
    Location
    College Station Texas
    Post Count
    3,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Monteverdi View Post
    Nope, this is not what I was talking about. I know this and that is why I adapted my strategy ever since. I would only attack players with either below 10 k defense or less than 600 units, so I did not lose a single unit. But since last week, Gree makes you lose units even if you go below that threshold ! This is what has changed.
    This is something some of us had predicted for months was in the process of occuring. there was no way Gree(d) would let us keep our units we were collecting with out paying gold. every time someone works out a way to either reduce they make new ways to kill us. but still whats most distrubring is they cannot figure out the low/no casualty glitchers.

  6. #21
    Banned
    Member Since
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Post Count
    790
    More reason for the boycott, people!

  7. #22
    Banned
    Member Since
    Aug 2012
    Post Count
    241
    Why build a system like that though? It defeats the purpose of PvP when all interact not using gold units become super unbearable. You want to keep people playing and turn them away from a core component of this game which is PvP.

  8. #23
    Articulate Author
    Member Since
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    346
    An army (A) that is ten times the size of another army (B) should have about ten times higher upkeep. If you are high level and bring a ****load of units to a fight, you will have more casualties.
    See my mathematical explanation on page 1.

    As far as gameplay goes, it sucks balls! You have to be very restrictive with interaction. Which goes against the PvP part of this game, which is it's main selling point!
    This leads to (my) one strategy: keep allies down, keep out of whale territory and participate in events as much as possible to get indestructibles.


    Another thing I realized in this thread is that the Infirmary boost is inactive during upgrading, just like money-buildings don't produce money, at least this would explain some of my experiences!
    |Android|Level 73|662-896-691|IPH 947k (908k*)|Captain-2|Россия|iBOB|
    *Realistic IPH; not counting <1h buildings, 1h-75%, 3h-33%, 6h-25%, 8h+ 100%
    Strategy: Strictly free player! Camping - except during events!
    Event history: #1T:0 #2T:9 #3A:14 #4A:14 #5T:9 #6T:10! #7A:15 #8T:10! #9A:14 #10B:1R #11A:12 #12B:1R #13T:10! #14B:1R #15T:9 #16B:0R0C #17A:16 #18B:1U #19T:9 #20B:1R2U #21W:T1k #22B:2R3U #23A:21 #24B:3U #25W:T100 #26A:20 #27B:2R3U #28T:9 #29W:T100

  9. #24
    Newbie
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Post Count
    30
    I have had the same problem. I have attack of 42k and attacked someone with defence of 2k and I lost a stealth boat, mobile artillery and a hardened marine!

  10. #25
    Banned
    Member Since
    Aug 2012
    Post Count
    241
    Quote Originally Posted by Товарищ View Post
    An army (A) that is ten times the size of another army (B) should have about ten times higher upkeep. If you are high level and bring a ****load of units to a fight, you will have more casualties.
    See my mathematical explanation on page 1.

    As far as gameplay goes, it sucks balls! You have to be very restrictive with interaction. Which goes against the PvP part of this game, which is it's main selling point!
    This leads to (my) one strategy: keep allies down, keep out of whale territory and participate in events as much as possible to get indestructibles.


    Another thing I realized in this thread is that the Infirmary boost is inactive during upgrading, just like money-buildings don't produce money, at least this would explain some of my experiences!

    A game is not suppose to be made like that. No game that does PvP has a system like this. In many card games, the player with the better deck and skill wins. Sometimes you'll lose to dead draws but not often. In RPG's a critical hit can lose a game for you (Pokemon). In this game, unless you buy gold, you always have dead draws or critical hits against you. There is no excuse to lose very low causality rate units each attack. The game should all you to choose what units go into battle against what units. This way attack and defense number don't matter much so you control what lives or dies.

    If I'm attacking someone with 76 Fighter Jets as their only unit, I should be able to attack with my 76+ A10 Warthog or defend with my 76+ Global Hawk Drones and we both take hits based on that battle. What I'm saying is I should be able to set what units should fight what units. Also based on this system, indestructible or gold units dont win every fight. They can still lose the battle but retain the perk that they can't die. If my opponent attacks me with 47 Stealth Fighters, I should be able to defend against them with my 2000+ Fighter Jets and only that unit. I can only lose units I set to attack or defend with, not what I don't have set. I should also be able to set what units I can defend each of my building with. This ads SO much more strategy to the game its unreal and would make it one of the best games on the market.

  11. #26
    Consistent Contributor
    Member Since
    May 2012
    Location
    Montreal
    Post Count
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Товарищ View Post
    An army (A) that is ten times the size of another army (B) should have about ten times higher upkeep. If you are high level and bring a ****load of units to a fight, you will have more casualties.
    See my mathematical explanation on page 1.!
    Sorry, but this still does not make sense for me. My casualty rate should not depend on whether I bring 2000 units but rather on the number of units and strength of the defending army. Let's say the opponent has only one unit, taking your model he would never use that unit but I would still lose plenty of mine, so how realistic is that ?
    This game as it is now simply SUCKS !

  12. #27
    Prominent Poet
    Member Since
    Sep 2012
    Location
    .....moo :D
    Post Count
    1,586
    Yep everyone is rite, if you raid anyone with the defense half of your attack, you'll win BUT the casualty is high, everyone can go and check it out, GREEd did something to the game, best boycott to avoid more 'losses'!!!!

    Cheers

  13. #28
    Consistent Contributor
    Member Since
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Post Count
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Товарищ View Post
    An army (A) that is ten times the size of another army (B) should have about ten times higher upkeep. If you are high level and bring a ****load of units to a fight, you will have more casualties.
    See my mathematical explanation on page 1.
    From your earlier quote, I am interpreting you to say that the number of casualties is purely a function of how many you take to battle and independent of how many the target has.

    It doesn't make sense to me that taking 2000 units into battle and having a consumption rate of 1% would always produce 20 casualties on average, regardless of whether you attacked someone with 1900 units or you attacked someone with 19 units. (Assuming all units for attacker and attackee are otherwise equal -- all commandos, for instance).

    I understand that number of units determines whether you win or lose, but it seems like it would determine how much you win or lose, too.

    However, there are plenty of other goofy things about this game, so nothing surprises me anymore. Thanks for your explanation!

  14. #29
    I had to take some time and confirm this with the dev team, but this is actually the fix for the casualty issue. If you're seeing higher casualty rates, it's because you were effected by the problem.
    Last edited by Crime City Mark; 11-13-2012 at 10:31 AM. Reason: Spelling is important.
    https://www.facebook.com/RPGMonsterQuest

  15. #30
    Prominent Poet
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    US
    Post Count
    1,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Crime City Mark View Post
    I had to take some time and confirm this with the dev team, but this is actually the fix for the casualty issue. If you're seeing higher casualty rates, it's because you were effected by the problem.
    If you're seeing higher casualty rates, it's because you were affected by the problem.

    Fixed that for you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •