yes...top props to devs....as soon as they said they working on it ,,,no more than a few minutes later buffer was in place....still think i can be stolen from with no money out....as soon as orcster and his bandits get tired all of kaw can still hit me.....the bigger the spy the easier it will be...suggest u have 100k spy attack or bigger
There is another way to allow spys to steal max and the person being stolen loses 1 but I am not telling anyone how to do that
3 land. Money out. No allies. Lose 3g a steal while with a few hundred gold down. Oh and no buildings lol. I should know I've done it
One thing I don't get is why would anyone in their right mind steal 3gold? They'd lose spies I the process and earn only a pinch of gold... UNLESS...it's for burning spies. Then I understand lol.
For those of us with spies...3g out from the target still earns a max plunder for the spy if the target is strong enough. Devs I am dissappointed that you nerfed this strategy inside war for spies. I repeatedly posted to you about this glitch in feedback and even in the forums following the release of the war system. Your lack of response led me to believe that this was acceptable gaming strategy. In fact, in several wars since then, I have effectively implemented this strategy allowing me as a spy to be amongst top earners in a war. (3.1 bil not to toot my horn as I know many attack builds have earned upwards of 7). simply stated it made the spies go mono e. Mono. And i began working hard as a lc player to potion myself up.
Prince, you said if strong enough. In order to only lose 3g you need no buildings and I'm currently running 3 land just for the sake of not needing the new land. 0/0/0/0 isn't strong stats. Stronger you are the more likely you will lose the few hundred gold in a single steal
Yes cor, my gold plunder from a steal is based on the relative strength of my opponent to my strength-similar to att builds. Thus i do not receive my max steal amount on a 0/0 even if they only lose 3 gold per steal.
That's what I meant. I think you originally meant they had 3g out and lost in a single steal and gained max plunder due to their relative strength I misread
So does this change affect all spy buildings? I.e if an attacker has spies and Runs them to 20% will they now be too weak to be assinated or stolen from. If so the scout function of spies has become significantly less effective.
Cor- as I understand all the previous posts, the buffers which now exist are that a spy cannot steal a spy with 0 gold out. However, the devs also posted about a buffer similar to attack builds. I am assuming this means that when a spy reaches below 20% spies he can not have a spy action done against him. However my questions are: 1. Is that a correct understanding of the buffers? 2. If an attack build which incorporates a few spy buildings can be too weak to be spied by reducing his spy count to below 20%?
Ok, like any good forum hound should I ran some simulations to try and understand the new buffers the devs put in place. 1. A spy can steal another spy with 0 gold until the spy is below 20% 2. A spy can steal another spy below 20% if that spy has money available 3. A spy does not get a too weak msg from an att build that is below 20% if they have money out. ( I still have a few more simulations to run but I hope this answers some questions about the slight change in game mechanics).
chaz that is wrong as i just tried stealing from a spy who had below 20% spies and 25 mil out. i got the DTW message. (if your simulations are based upon pure spies and pure warriors please indicate that as a player with all guilds and 1 forge is still considered a spy)
Funnyman- per my post a spy was referring to a pure spy, as in no attacking buildings. An attacker was referring to having at least 1 attacking building.
ok, that makes more sense then, as i have found that attacking a spy with 1 forge is DTW when attacking if they have below 20% troops but are still stealable if they have more than 20% spies. they are DTW when stealing if they have below 20% spies (with gold out in both scenarios)