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?

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).

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?

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. 

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

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

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.

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.

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. 

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).

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.

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?

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?