Reviewing PvP Plunder Algorithm

Ok op let me alleviate the two concerns U brought up and add a little extra insight

1)adding 50% increased plunder to Pvp actions will nullify the need for hte

While I agree with u that any proposal that does make HTE less profitable for the devs will never fly or gain traction ....

Increasing Pvp plunder by 50% (as we all know from ee edge it's not really a 1/2 increase) U would only make the full increase at 50% chance at winning which would mean U are likely to fail 1/2 of all actions to begin with at that plunder lvl ... Also UR not making that increased plunder durning a full unload .... So 1) no way to earn that much on a full unload (plus ud be missing the hte end bonus) and 2) even if u could find a way to get the 50% odds of success per hit for an entire unload U would only win around 1/2 of them ... And 3) the plunder earned at 50% increase would not come close to plunder earned on hte per hit (yes it would be closer but less often and still less per hit)

Now for sake of argument because I thought of this and know it will come up ... Hansels hitting other hansels will have a better chance at increase full bar payouts .... While that is true this system stops hansels from dominating in Pvp against other types of builds and that has to be compensated in some way ... Also hansels tend to be more plunder heavy builds to begin with in general as they do not tower up as much (especially adt) and lastly for the slight increase in plunder ability they gain they also have to be hitting builds that have equal shot at returning hits and must maintain an attack building to take advantage of the plunder meaning they will always be open unless currently self pinning meaning way more management for a slight plunder advantage against only other hansels ...

UR second point 2)while I agree that my numbers for plunder percentage may be off some (I was just throwing number out as an example) as long as it's incremental increase from 99% to 50% resulting in 100% UR plunder potential at 50% success rate and increases as U drop below that 50% mark I really couldn't care less what the devs choice to assign to each percent of victory ..... Could be as they see fit

While yes a larger lb will have 99% (10% plunder) almost all war UR bigs would make 80-90% at a rate of 55-65% victory ratio making up most of the difference in plunder earned by both sides

As far as ee goes while it's possible to stack top and bottom heavy to get a medium roster match ... This system would equalize plunder over the course of the entire roster making it more strategic to place hits where u can earn the most plunder for UR LVL and to make full advantage of UR entire bar of troops/spies ... Meaning who U target would have to be much thought out and tactical to overcome certain size disparities but completely doable ....

On a side note to ee mostly it becomes more profitable per action to hit like kind size builds then to hit others meaning there will need to be rosters made up of all types and size builds to counter each other durning war ... No single build make up would completely dominate anymore

 

Yes you cannot blame op he is just creating a biased thread that is all. Only expressing and try to force his shoddy elitist ideas upon everyone else like wiping a dirty nappy upon the face of those who disagree with him. Trying frantically to twist,manipulate the while thread so from appearances looks like many agree, I for one flip op the bird! Op you Can put your propaganda egotistical thread where the sun doesn't shine.

 

Not everyone can spend as much money as you and your clan can. That's why.

 

And don't forget you're playing with a third of your original pieces (sh size). And everyone hates you, throws varying objects at you, and calls you demoralizing names like "exploit".

Its taken me a very long time to gather up my ally pool to some amount, while i may or may not have a larger account with that much sitting out right now. We have received some accurate numbers on PvP plunder from several people here, but we can also look at HTE plunder and how long it really does take to acquire BFA for smaller builds.

Yes I do believe my time and efforts should result in an advantage over builds from people that haven't invested that time and effort.

If someone happens to get his/her undies in a bundle over my "advantage", use your eb plunder advantage to build BFA to match and stop mine. Prepare for war, theres your chance to use your strategy. Choose BFA or ADT to stop me.

I'm okay with round wars dying... I understand why that happened. Now I spend my days, plundering soft builds in Indi Wars, still losing far too much considering my extra queen. I fancy to think of myself as carrying my own weight in wars if not a little more.

I enjoy a challenging game of chess, and I use my extra queen to the extent of my abilities to win with my clan. With all due respect, get your own damn queen.

"Stay in School, Kids" --Mr_Tubs

 

Don't take instantaneous strength into plunder mechanics.
Station hiney ur proposal is funny. I left the thread in exasperation when I read it. Just came back to have a laugh.
Mypouf thread going nowhere because of your Anti-sh/lb approach.
U think lb or stacked high BFA sh got their BFA in a month? No my friend thats 5 years of work in some cases.
U are bringing chess into this. Even though I can beat u with two queens its not a mmo game.
This is. Everyone here starts with a volley. Make what u make of your hours and money to have fun.
Ofc the plunder mechs needs improvement but dont bring instantaneous (at that moment) strength comparison in this.
Its so stupid to say that I will get 100% on my enemy only when j have a 50% fail chance on him. Lol had my laugh for now.

 

I find it funny that so many make claims that it takes a SH years to build BFA, yet in the same sentence they insinuate it is fast and easy to grow into a midsized build. In an eb, SH plunder similarly to what I get due to my being forced to add towers to prevent SH from exploiting the obvious bug in the plunder algorithm. So, if we make the same in an eb, it stands to reason that we have both earned the same amount of gold from those ebs(we all know that they make exponentially more in PvP).

Now, let's add up the cost of going SH versus my build. It takes exponentially more gold for my build. So anyone playing as long as I have (over 2 years) but went the cheap SH route has TENS OF TRILLIONS of gold to spend on allies. And you argue that the SH is owed an advantage because it took so long to build allies??? Even thouh it took me the same amount of time to reach my CS?? I say your argument is severely flawed. I should not be penalized for actually building my kingdom. I should not lose gold retaliating against SH (SH pay less per hit than the cost of pots used) simply because I refuse to utilize the known exploits in the plunder formula.

This thread is an attempt by players to level the playing field FOR ALL BUILDS by adding BFA and BFE into the plunder formula. I have not seen one logical and thought out argument why the PvP formula should not be changed. Just because the devs failed to realize how lopsided their approach is does not mean it should stay the way it is.

So now that we know building a SH takes less time and the BFA they build is the same cost as the rest of my structures, I ask why SH should make 70 times per hit attacking me than I make retaliating? Correcting the plunder formula by adding fully weighted BFA and BFE (100% of each) allows for plunder from PvP to equalize between builds that took the same time to create.

Yes, I spent a lot of time discussing my build and SH. Unfortunatelty everyone seems to focus on that aspect of the change and ignoring how a change in the plunder formula means an INCREASE in plunder for bigs attacking lbs. This change would benefit everyone, except for those using the exploit. And keeping an exploit because people use it is a silly argument. Using an exploit is NOT strategic.

I keep seeing people going OT by bringing up an ally cap or a BFE cap. Please keep your arguments on the plunder equation.

 

I volunteer as target.

 

When was the last time you were hit by an SH in war? (Round wars don't count everyone knows they're dead and broken so don't do them) and if you have been hit recently, did you really have to hit back? Mypouf used the term strategy. My strategy is to hit higher for more plunder. Your strategy perhaps should be tank troops and assassinate the sh. I get hit by builds smaller than me in war, and I return the hits as assassins for the sake of maximizing plunder. Lets strategize people!

"Wash your hands, kids" --Mr_Tubs

 

In this debate over whether those with high bfa have an "unfair" advantage, don't forget that those with high ally value take a risk: it can be stripped away. Buildings can't. As stated before, I'm more focused on osw (which I would like to keep very relevant).

Mypouf, while I appreciate your desire to be presented with fully fleshed out ideas, that's just not how the world usually works. Instead, most great ideas are built upon through iterations. They start with some kernels. Where I think your approach could be improved is to take the nuggets and build on them rather than throw everything out for the sake of some unfinished parts. Personally, I think there is something to the 100%, 80%, 50% idea as well as several other ideas that have been floated. If your objective truly is to improve things then focus on that and not on the presentation. If your only objective is to ram your idea through, then I hope the devs can see through that.

 

I had a few SH try to poach from me during the last PvP event I took part in. It was the warworn token event. Yes, I hit back. Even the one who failed every try. I havent warred much since season 2, as the only wars I can do since I am a mid are indis, and they are a crapshoot. BTW, the SH I retaliated against paid crap.

You keep misusing the word strategy. Utilizing an exploit is NOT strategic, it is the same as using a cheat code. I have no respect for an exploiter, nor for someone who uses a cheat code to post the top score.

 

Have you not read the entire thread? Pouf HAS changed his stance on a few issues because peoplw have explained their logic better when asked. That is typically how a good discussion works.

I disagree that different % is a good idea, unless it is 100% BFE, 80% BFA and 50% troop strength. As mypouf illustrated on page one a build that has high BFA and BFE, which are static, has a huge advantage when fighting from pin. Weighing those static boosts as less valuable than troop strength makes no sense.

 

Greyire,

I suppose there is a way this proposed system could actually benefit high bfa holders because it could increase their gold when low troops, depending who they hit. If I'm understanding correctly.

I'd just encourage remembering the strip risk that comes with holding allies.

 

And I have no respect for someone who asserts an opinion as a fact that only has its basis in pure emotional (for lack of a better term) butthurt.

Show me on this teddy bear where the bad sh touched you.

Strategy is a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim (so google tells me). I want to win wars. To win wars you need plunder. How do I get more plunder? By hitting higher. How do I successfully hit higher? BFA. That is my plan/strategy. Whats yours? I'm going to advise getting a new one other than complaining. Be proactive and improve yourself instead of beseeching the devs to bring down others.

"Eat those greens, kids." --Mr_Tubs

 

Mypouf,

This is my main and I do not have a sh with more than mp. I'm not protecting SH. In fact I haven't taken a position on SH in this thread. Only on bfa and bfe (but the recent exchange has been more bfa focused).

Re: strip risk: I stated several times that I am interested in protecting osw. That's why I see strip risk as real and therefore something to compensate for. To me: it adds an enjoyable element to the game.

In osw, I have yet to see an sh (or any hansel) that I believe has an advantage particularly above my advantages, except those with high bfa. And, for those with high bfa, I figure they earned it and are taking a risk. Once they lose that bfa, I farm them to no end and earn tons of gold off them.

I do not have an ulterior motive here. Your rush to judge continues to convince me that you are not being open minded. Again, I see some benefits to what you are proposing. However, I think it could use improvements. Improvements that are influenced by the risks and downsides that those with high bfa take on.

 

Nice try op .... I did warn U it was a waste of time ... Sorry

Those that care about the system being fixed mostly don't play .. Those that abuse the system like it the way it is ... And although the devs have clearly stated that gh/sh/ssh issues are the Bain of their existence and "it's the reason we can't have nice wars" and also the reason the completely changed plunder on spy buildings a little over a year ago...

They don't really care if it gets fixed .. They now have events for cash that relay heavily on pay for play Ebs ... Even the Pvp events have pay to play to place high... Making plunder disparities between differing size builds all but non important issue due to the fact no one will ever be able to play the game by warring with kingdoms and growing .... U pay U stall or U quite only 3 real options