Intentional maxing

[Shadow]

yeah, that's the idea.

[Twilight Shadow]

Yeah, there's another point that I thought of that legitimized what I thought, but I literally don't remember it. It made so much sense at the time.

PHAIL keep thinking and you will remember... I think lol

And are you saying that the failed attacks in the hour will count towards the max attacks and then will be disappear after an hour giving those chances of attacks back to someone trying to succeed or suicide?

[Neobaron]

No, the failed attacks won't count at all on the available attacks counter.

[Shadow]

Ah ok.

No.

If you failed 21 attacks in an hour, it would only count as 1 on the opponents counter.

[Twilight Shadow]

So an example may make better sense to you Shadow.


So AAA has 22 on counter

I succeed 10 times and fail 12 times.

So at the next hour you get get X amount of turns regenerated(I dont remember the number of what it is) lets say 5 attacks

So you were at "0" before the hour, the hour turns....

So AAA counter will go from "0" to "the 12 fails" + 5 atks regend(X amount of atks) = 17 atks will show up on the counter at the turn of the hour


Is it going to work like that???

[Shadow]

no lol, reread my above post

you failed 12 times, of which one is counted. You succeeded 10 times, all are counted.

so in total, the counter has been reduced by 11. On the hour, it unmaxes by one as usual.

[Twilight Shadow]

Oh that makes better sense then what I thought thanks! That would be a good idea, land would flow better I would think.

[Aus]

Wow... I didn't realize I had created such a fuss by wasting my turns pooping rats against someone's defenses. It was super fun, if it helps...?

I think taking 80-100mil nw off of someone is a bit better than "ineffective", although I really like that solution you guys are throwing around.

Please let me know if I really am breaking any rules; I don't mean to be a butthead. On the other hand, I'd love to see something shaken up rather than peaceful clans sharing land and seeing who can press the "Loot" spell the fastest and with the best ratio. Lord almighty, those runs get boring!

[Holby]

I'm not for a change in the way maxing works,especially in terms of leader suicides. Having a system like that (unless you could make it solely for troop attacks), means a solo player could be suicided indefinitely.

Intentional maxing is easy to pick up on. And it's only once in a blue moon that someone doesn't realise troop suicides are ineffective.

Failed attacks cost turns, health, and you always lose more than you destroy. In effect, you're making yourself weaker and wasting turns. Very, very, very rarely would it ever be a semi effective option. The only conceivable way I can see is if you had a small amount of resources, but you were generating a lot of troops, so killing troops off in attacks doesn't have much of an impact.

But realistically, that's a very rare  scenario, and the need to wear down an opponent to that extent nearly always involves team play, because of emping, which makes the whole thing redundant.

I also like the idea that someone attempting to lock doesn't have to face 22 successful attacks from the person who successfully breaks, and defenses in quick succession can reduce the potential for future attacks.

In short, I don't really see a problem, I find the existing system makes sense, and changing it would screw up suicides.

Now, to Neo's point, about the "omg how lame you have to outnet to take someone down". I don't see why players should be able to ruin everyone else, with no resources, no turns, or no set up. So I don't agree with the fact that making enough troops to break another Warlord is a cop out, and poor, new players are missing out.

Leader suicides need fixing, though. But they have to be defendable still.

[Firetooth]

It seems I misunderstood how the system works. Apologies to Aus.

[Aus]

Holby, I disagree with the ineffectiveness of suiciding, although I can see your point of view and there's alot of merit to it. In this case, I consistently killed more rats than I lost, even with 30% health. At one point it was a loss of around 1 mil rats against his 6.5 mil lost. Perhaps it's simply due to his low health when I attacked? I didn't even think to espy so I don't know.

Example:
1.5 hours ago    Northern Hordes (#22) attacked you!    You held your defense and your enemy was repelled, but you lost:
3,551,492 Rats
You managed to destroy:
1,045,493 Rats
1.5 hours ago    Northern Hordes (#22) attacked you!    You held your defense and your enemy was repelled, but you lost:
2,690,033 Rats
You managed to destroy:
19,374 Rats
1.5 hours ago    Northern Hordes (#22) attacked you!    You held your defense and your enemy was repelled, but you lost:
6,529,216 Rats
You managed to destroy:
654,221 Rats
1.5 hours ago    Northern Hordes (#22) attacked you!    You held your defense and your enemy was repelled, but you lost:
3,472,744 Rats
You managed to destroy:
1,468,360 Rats

[Shadow]

suicides are not entirely ineffective, to be honest. They are only not used now because generally, maxxing someone with troop suicides is counterproductive. If you have the troops to burn and you can't max them, it is a wasteful strategy, but it does work after a while.

Note that it gets less effective for heavier troop types and troops with high defense values, since losses are related to defensive power. For example, try doing that with weasels and see how far you get ^_^