This topic is closed

Offence Defense Imbalance

60 Replies
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
23 September, 2016, 8:00 AM UTC
Thanks for details, guys! Now I have something to pass to devsĀ 
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
Timmyboy
23 September, 2016, 12:06 PM UTC

The game in terms of offense and defense is certainly balanced.


Yes +50% did wack this balance out a bit and should be removed.


ridiculous castle defense bonus and castle reviving just compensated for the fireball strategy (so i would consider this balanced)


Beacons however are somewhat unbalanced and this has came about because a certain league decided to make a pay-pal account to fund their league hammer. Simple would be to limit how much a player can revive on a 75% discount, if you are buying more then 20M of revives in the infirmary during a 75% revive which happens once a month something is seriously wrong. A league using a pay-pal account would under that only be able to buy 60M a month (not including boost building pathfinders) This would still mean it would take them a year to build a 1B hammer which would somewhat more balance. Also beacons should be force limit restricted. We know if updates like this would happen certain coining leagues would still find a way around it (as i already know these ways) but it would be a good step in the way to make it that leagues do not need 100's of millions on a beacon to not fear being overwhelmed significantly.


Seige rules v raid mechanics are very balanced, risk v return, otherwise you would only send enough to kill 51% on a beacon every-time (which in itself wouldn't be a dumb strategy if you wanted the beacon)
King Timmmy's Destiny
UTC +0:00
djmoody
24 September, 2016, 2:01 AM UTC

If Plarium are seriously listening about balance then take a look at C&C Tiberium Alliances business model (ultimately run by EA, not exactly known among gamers for their altruistic behavior)

To retain a balance between free to play / modest pay / uber pay they have an in game item called supply points (SP). You can only bring the resources you pay for into the game using SP. SP's are limited and restore over time. So literally they placed a spending cap on the game.

They did this to prevent uber pay to win losers ruining the game for everyone - and therefore ultimately the developer too when everyone simply leaves the title due to imbalance.

Compared to this game the culture it has created seems to be one where A LOT of people spend a MODEST amount of money. Contrast to Stormall which has a culture/model of a very SMALL number paying A LOT. I suspect their title is much more robust, whereas each server on stormfall has such a small number of players they are at risk of collapse if a significant number of players leave at the same time.

The game has combat elements that rely on skill as well which automatically puts it ahead of balance stormfall can achieve currently - they is no skill to pressing send on your giant army and having a calculator resolve the battle outcome. There are way too few opportunities in this game for skill, intelligence and strategy to overcome the brute force of "pay to win". 


Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
26 September, 2016, 9:11 AM UTC

Timmyboy said:


certain league decided to make a pay-pal account to fund their league hammer. 

Didn't know that...

As for your suggestion to set limits for 75% discounts, I'll pass this idea to devs.
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
Snowgoon
26 September, 2016, 3:49 PM UTC

Beacons have no attack limits in Stormfall, but have 300,000 limit in pirate game @ plarium.com and is only 100,000 on kabam server?

Where is the balance?


I can send 250,000 against a level 2 castle ... but the same limit applies to level 100 castles???


yet can only send 200,000 against a level 8 Fortress???

Level 20 Fort is 500,000
Level Zero Fort is 100,000


So .... who wrote the algorithm for this garbage?


If anyone is playing Sparta, Total Dom etc then I would love to see the figures

Force Limits need a major re-vamp in all plarium games and linking Force to Food Consumption is insane, especially when food has no value in this game. Top players have massive negative food production, but can send starved armies to attack.
An army marches on its stomach, remember?

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way - Pink Floyd - http://prnt.sc/dv923b
UTC +0:00
IronApex Turok
26 September, 2016, 8:10 PM UTC

it should be more of a risk to attack than it is to defend. 


when you can swing 1.5 billion hammers and most people are catacombed anyway, why even bother spying.

in the same line of thinking, when a 1.5 billion hammer is swinging about why defend?  


the day to day game as it was designed is pointless. the meta game that DJMoody talked about in another thread is all thats left and that is slowly decaying.



this game, simply, isnt fun. 


UTC +0:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
27 September, 2016, 11:40 AM UTC
Snowgoon said:

Beacons have no attack limits in Stormfall, but have 300,000 limit in pirate game @ plarium.com and is only 100,000 on kabam server?

Where is the balance?


I can send 250,000 against a level 2 castle ... but the same limit applies to level 100 castles???


yet can only send 200,000 against a level 8 Fortress???

Level 20 Fort is 500,000
Level Zero Fort is 100,000


So .... who wrote the algorithm for this garbage?


If anyone is playing Sparta, Total Dom etc then I would love to see the figures

Force Limits need a major re-vamp in all plarium games and linking Force to Food Consumption is insane, especially when food has no value in this game. Top players have massive negative food production, but can send starved armies to attack.
An army marches on its stomach, remember?

Which limits are the most reasonable in your opinion?
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
TheLegend
27 September, 2016, 2:49 PM UTC

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:



Which limits are the most reasonable in your opinion?

To be honest if you are talking about limits in the first place there is a more fundamental problem.

If there is a need to cap the largest armies, the question that should be being asked is why are those armies so big and out of balance with the rest of the game they need to be capped?

Deal with that problem and there is no need for arbitrary caps. 

Quickly on caps, they can never be a good thing. Given the siege mechanic put enough defence into something with a cap and it's untakeable. For people to control valuable assets which have no risk is not good for a strategy war game  (e.g. fortresses of leagues that know what they are doing are either empty or untakeable, there is no inbetween).

UTC +0:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
28 September, 2016, 6:21 AM UTC
TheLegend said:

If there is a need to cap the largest armies, the question that should be being asked is why are those armies so big and out of balance with the rest of the game they need to be capped?


I didn't mean army limits. Snowgoon mentioned attack limits, which I meant in my comment. The number of Units you can send into attack is limited by their Food consumption. We have set those limits to avoid situations when one player could destroy almost everyone on the map without any big losses, because his army was owerwhelming.
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
Gadheras
28 September, 2016, 10:44 AM UTC

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


TheLegend said:


If there is a need to cap the largest armies, the question that should be being asked is why are those armies so big and out of balance with the rest of the game they need to be capped?


I didn't mean army limits. Snowgoon mentioned attack limits, which I meant in my comment. The number of Units you can send into attack is limited by their Food consumption. We have set those limits to avoid situations when one player could destroy almost everyone on the map without any big losses, because his army was owerwhelming.

Havent we already reached that point in the game, when there is no point in holding becons ? When the combined strenhgt of a league can't hold vs the hammer of a single player. I believe your game is fubar. Maybe food consumption is just to low on certain units. 


UTC +2:00
Snowgoon
28 September, 2016, 4:06 PM UTC

TheLegend said:


Alyona Kolomiitseva said:



Which limits are the most reasonable in your opinion?

To be honest if you are talking about limits in the first place there is a more fundamental problem.

If there is a need to cap the largest armies, the question that should be being asked is why are those armies so big and out of balance with the rest of the game they need to be capped?

Deal with that problem and there is no need for arbitrary caps. 

Quickly on caps, they can never be a good thing. Given the siege mechanic put enough defence into something with a cap and it's untakeable. For people to control valuable assets which have no risk is not good for a strategy war game  (e.g. fortresses of leagues that know what they are doing are either empty or untakeable, there is no inbetween).

I don't believe this argument about Siege Mechanics versus Raid Mechanics. It is a myth ... unless somebody can provide the siege algorithm.

The only difference between them is that a successful raid does not evict surviving defense, but units from a sieged beacon are returned to their owners. Units in a successfully raided fortress remain to fight another day.
I have tried a few small-scale experiments and have found no difference to loss percentages.


Also, it should never be possible to 'overwhelm' any fort or beacon - attacker and defender should suffer similar losses


If your enemy has 1 million total defense, then sending 1,000,001 offense will secure a victory and both players lose 50% (500k).
But sending 99 million offense will increase losses for both players (990k).
Attacker loses 1% and defender loses 99% - but total losses are equal


The question of Force Limit can only be answered by examining the data held by plarium devs - but it should never be possible for 3 players to send a league attack and wipe out any well-defended beacon or fort in one wave
It should need many waves to weaken first.


The 13 Days of Glory at the Siege of Alamo would have lasted less than 5 seconds in Plariumville.

300 Spartans held the Pass against 1 million Persians until betrayed

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way - Pink Floyd - http://prnt.sc/dv923b
UTC +0:00
BiohazarD
Moderator
28 September, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC
Snowgoon said:

TheLegend said:


Alyona Kolomiitseva said:



Which limits are the most reasonable in your opinion?

To be honest if you are talking about limits in the first place there is a more fundamental problem.

If there is a need to cap the largest armies, the question that should be being asked is why are those armies so big and out of balance with the rest of the game they need to be capped?

Deal with that problem and there is no need for arbitrary caps. 

Quickly on caps, they can never be a good thing. Given the siege mechanic put enough defence into something with a cap and it's untakeable. For people to control valuable assets which have no risk is not good for a strategy war game  (e.g. fortresses of leagues that know what they are doing are either empty or untakeable, there is no inbetween).

I don't believe this argument about Siege Mechanics versus Raid Mechanics. It is a myth ... unless somebody can provide the siege algorithm.

The only difference between them is that a successful raid does not evict surviving defense, but units from a sieged beacon are returned to their owners. Units in a successfully raided fortress remain to fight another day.
I have tried a few small-scale experiments and have found no difference to loss percentages.


Also, it should never be possible to 'overwhelm' any fort or beacon - attacker and defender should suffer similar losses


If your enemy has 1 million total defense, then sending 1,000,001 offense will secure a victory and both players lose 50% (500k).
But sending 99 million offense will increase losses for both players (990k).
Attacker loses 1% and defender loses 99% - but total losses are equal


The question of Force Limit can only be answered by examining the data held by plarium devs - but it should never be possible for 3 players to send a league attack and wipe out any well-defended beacon or fort in one wave
It should need many waves to weaken first.


The 13 Days of Glory at the Siege of Alamo would have lasted less than 5 seconds in Plariumville.

300 Spartans held the Pass against 1 million Persians until betrayed

Seriously dude do you even stormfall?
UTC +0:00
Gadheras
28 September, 2016, 8:42 PM UTC

BiohazarD said:


Snowgoon said:


TheLegend said:


Alyona Kolomiitseva said:



Which limits are the most reasonable in your opinion?

To be honest if you are talking about limits in the first place there is a more fundamental problem.

If there is a need to cap the largest armies, the question that should be being asked is why are those armies so big and out of balance with the rest of the game they need to be capped?

Deal with that problem and there is no need for arbitrary caps. 

Quickly on caps, they can never be a good thing. Given the siege mechanic put enough defence into something with a cap and it's untakeable. For people to control valuable assets which have no risk is not good for a strategy war game  (e.g. fortresses of leagues that know what they are doing are either empty or untakeable, there is no inbetween).

I don't believe this argument about Siege Mechanics versus Raid Mechanics. It is a myth ... unless somebody can provide the siege algorithm.

The only difference between them is that a successful raid does not evict surviving defense, but units from a sieged beacon are returned to their owners. Units in a successfully raided fortress remain to fight another day.
I have tried a few small-scale experiments and have found no difference to loss percentages.


Also, it should never be possible to 'overwhelm' any fort or beacon - attacker and defender should suffer similar losses


If your enemy has 1 million total defense, then sending 1,000,001 offense will secure a victory and both players lose 50% (500k).
But sending 99 million offense will increase losses for both players (990k).
Attacker loses 1% and defender loses 99% - but total losses are equal


The question of Force Limit can only be answered by examining the data held by plarium devs - but it should never be possible for 3 players to send a league attack and wipe out any well-defended beacon or fort in one wave
It should need many waves to weaken first.


The 13 Days of Glory at the Siege of Alamo would have lasted less than 5 seconds in Plariumville.

300 Spartans held the Pass against 1 million Persians until betrayed

Seriously dude do you even stormfall?

Don't think he do history either. Persians wasn't a million huge, but more like 100-150k, which was quite overwhelming for Leonidas forces. Which btw, was more than just 300 spartans. There where Thespians, Thebians and a few houndres else so maybe 1.8-2k all in all, defending a narrow pass. Anyways, this is not related to Stormfall, Because in Stormfall, a few can not stand agains the many, but the many can't stand against the few either, as events shown.


When leagues just dropping their becons because its pointless to defend. You know the game headed in a bad direction. I suppose the only thing you can really do is an all out server war where the leagues of the huge hammers, get attacked on all fronts, and made the lifes so misserable to the players. Because, the big hammers can't be everywhere.





UTC +2:00
Snowgoon
29 September, 2016, 3:30 PM UTC

We have been defending my fortified hometown for over 2,000 years. we know a thing or two about defense ;)

Romans, Vikings, Saxons, Normans, Scots, Lancastrians and Cromwell have all smashed against our City Walls.

http://prntscr.com/cnt9bv


*****************************************************************

Facebook has 5,480 Beacons and the top league holds 40 Beacons at level 5 but has kept their Fortress at level 8.
This would not be possible if the Force Limit was increased or removed.




Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way - Pink Floyd - http://prnt.sc/dv923b
UTC +0:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
30 September, 2016, 7:32 AM UTC
Gadheras said:

Havent we already reached that point in the game, when there is no point in holding becons ? When the combined strenhgt of a league can't hold vs the hammer of a single player. I believe your game is fubar. Maybe food consumption is just to low on certain units. 

Game is evolving, so everything's possible. But right now many Leagues still hold Beacons, so I think there are still some reasons to do so. But theoretically a moment can come when Beacons will no longer be desirable, and will be free most of the time.
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
djmoody
5 October, 2016, 2:09 AM UTC
Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

TheLegend said:

If there is a need to cap the largest armies, the question that should be being asked is why are those armies so big and out of balance with the rest of the game they need to be capped?


I didn't mean army limits. Snowgoon mentioned attack limits, which I meant in my comment. The number of Units you can send into attack is limited by their Food consumption. We have set those limits to avoid situations when one player could destroy almost everyone on the map without any big losses, because his army was owerwhelming.
Yeah that is exactly what I thought you meant and exactly what I was saying. Force limits to limit army size (army size you can send anyway, cause what point is army you can't send).
Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
Gadheras
5 October, 2016, 4:51 AM UTC
djmoody said:

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

TheLegend said:

If there is a need to cap the largest armies, the question that should be being asked is why are those armies so big and out of balance with the rest of the game they need to be capped?


I didn't mean army limits. Snowgoon mentioned attack limits, which I meant in my comment. The number of Units you can send into attack is limited by their Food consumption. We have set those limits to avoid situations when one player could destroy almost everyone on the map without any big losses, because his army was owerwhelming.
Yeah that is exactly what I thought you meant and exactly what I was saying. Force limits to limit army size (army size you can send anyway, cause what point is army you can't send).
imho, they should add another value to the fighting. "attrition/combat effectivity"... if you encamped and fortified you shouldn't suffer much in the way of that. If you a sieging force, and the bigger your foce is, the more you should suffer.
UTC +2:00
Sculptor
6 October, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

It's not as much the unbalance between off and def but the unreal difference between coiners and non coiners. I don't spent that much money on this game but even if I saved up for years I'll never be able to get those amounts of units. And that is just the only problem.


It wasn't to long ago that there was a rule of how many units u could have. If you ran out of food you would steadily lose units. After Plarium took that limit away the game went downhill.
Member of Blue Magic
UTC +0:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
7 October, 2016, 7:51 AM UTC
Guys, I think it would be cool to ask our devs about this issue. I will try to persuade them to answer this question in their next video. Could you please express it in a form of a question?
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
toggit
9 October, 2016, 3:02 PM UTC

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


Guys, I think it would be cool to ask our devs about this issue. I will try to persuade them to answer this question in their next video. Could you please express it in a form of a question?

The situation with Beacons and Fortresses is complicated by Plarium's insistence on applying different rules for every different game and server.
How can we ever achieve a balance when the goalposts are poles apart?


UTC +0:00
1719917 users registered; 42180 topics; 270337 posts; our newest member:shurek1987