Sack

[Genevieve]

Does anyone else think "sack" is too powerful? Coz it's kinda ruining me...
Should you really be able to take a tonne of land, cash and food and destroy troops all in one go?

[Holby]

Mhm, yes (and then no). It's now possible to take ALL of someone's resources, and ALL of someone's land with Sack. Has Sack's stats changed? It seems a bit crazy at the moment, much like Capture.

[Firetooth]

I'z been suffering of late. Of sack, that is.

[The Obliterator]

I think its good even tho its affecting me.
It gives indys a chance whereas they had no chance at all to do damage

[Shadow]

Pretty sure sack takes less than half of the and a normal attack does. If it is taking as much land as usual, that is a bug.

And I set the numbers s that sack tops out around 0.4% of someone's resources. So you should only be able to take at most 10% of someone's resources in 21 attacks. If more is being taken, let me know and we will adjust it.

[Firetooth]

I think its good even tho its affecting me.
It gives indys a chance whereas they had no chance at all to do damage

Leaders can sack as well, ya know. So it's not really that much of an advantage for indies

[The Obliterator]

ya but who always is the storehouses for cash and food

[Genevieve]

I agree with Firetooth, the vast majority of sacks on me have been by leader players, by far. I think indyers would prefer more land.
And Shadow, your numbers are right, but isn't losing 10% of your resources every day a lot?
I don't know about the land thing, because no one is attacking me without sacking...
And the land thing seems to be irrelevant anyway because i am getting way over-attacked (in terms of my acres vs. everyone else's) just because I have resources.

[The Obliterator]

If its impacting you that much
Buy defences
Make them work for your reasources.

[Shadow]

10% isn't that much when you can make more than that in a run. And Oblit has it right, it really is meant to encourage defenses in massers. But if it really is too much, we can tweak it.

[Genevieve]

10% isn't that much when you can make more than that in a run.

That's pretty subjective. If I had 50bil cash and 5bil food, yes, I would easily make over 10% in a run. But if I have 500bil cash and 50bil food, how the hell am I supposed to? I dunno if there's some way you could cap out the amount you can sack?


I understand it encourages defense. But I would still have to weigh up the costs of buying a heap of troops and leaving myself open to easy sacks. I also have to take my ratio into account.

And even then, say I spend 20bil cash on defense, it only costs someone between 2 and 3bil to break me in one troop type and gain a lot more in sacks - so what's the point? Maybe only making sack possible with standard attacks could be an idea?

[Wolf Snare]

IIRC, sack only used to be ecffective if it was used with standard. I say lower gains by 30 - 50% and make standarding take the current amount. Also, make standard capture constructed acres again would be nice.

[Shadow]

that works

[Firetooth]

IIRC, sack only used to be ecffective if it was used with standard. I say lower gains by 30 - 50% and make standarding take the current amount. Also, make standard capture constructed acres again would be nice.

Sounds good. Lots of players are making a killing in turbo.
Also is it really worth buying a ton of troops to protect your net? You might as well just make cash and buy troops for net.

[Juska]

Force them to buy troops to defend their resources.

Or, how about you lower the return for shielded embezzlements?

15 shielded embezzlements and I lose 50% of my cash? Come on.