Changing settlement attacking/defending.

[CSStriker]

you hit the nail on the head of what I was thinking...

If the weaker players feel that they have a chance at getting a lucky hit, then they will attack more...

sure, they will get a settlement or two every now and again, but they will also have to spend some MD from the failed attacks...

I am up for it

[Sharwing]

I agree, the idea is good when the winning/losing percentages balance out these 3 factors:

-Settlement owners gaining some MD from failed attacks.
-Settlement attackers gaining a small number of settlements to increase their mining yields.
-Lower level players putting MD into the game to upgrade enough to win a few settlements.

Am I missing anything else in my calculations?  I can't see any possible loopholes players could exploit from this idea.

I believe Homestead attacking/defending should remain the same.

[scottsinct]

No, I don't think you are missing anything.  It's a great idea that could add some excitement and luck to the game.  I'd almost say that the odds are a bit too low.  Maybe double the odds you listed in your chart.

Am I missing anything else in my calculations?  I can't see any possible loopholes players could exploit from this idea.

[slyfox]

Although people are so upset by this idea, it may actually end up benefitting the stronger players more than the weaker ones.

For instance, let's say player A is weaker and player B is strong, but player A is risky and attacks player B because he knows he has a small chance of winning.  If their defense level is different by even 1, then 9 times out of 10, player B will earn some MD from A (and if it's a settlement, keep it)!  Sure 1 time out of 10, A will get the settlement, but the 9 MD winnings might just make up for that.  And, this is just for a 1 level defense difference.

In short, I like this idea, but I believe the strong players need to reconsider that it makes them weaker.  I'm pretty sure it will do the opposite.

Actually the reason why you say this idea should be considered is not valid. Because members do attack and they attack daily. The majority of the membership are attackers. Attacking is the main fun of the game.

The oldest record attack in my activity log is 2006-08-28 00:29:53

There are a total of 15210 items in your activity log.

As you can see in 50 days I have had 15,210 attacks. That's a average of 304 per day.

[slyfox]

I agree, the idea is good when the winning/losing percentages balance out these 3 factors:

-Settlement owners gaining some MD from failed attacks.
-Settlement attackers gaining a small number of settlements to increase their mining yields.
-Lower level players putting MD into the game to upgrade enough to win a few settlements.

Am I missing anything else in my calculations?  I can't see any possible loopholes players could exploit from this idea.

I believe Homestead attacking/defending should remain the same.

One loophole is this or any idea. That creates a short cut. I and others got higher with no new rules created to give us wins against strionger players.
Play the game the way it is. Asking for new rules that give newer players a advanatage older players never had is not what I call playing the game fair.

Don't be giving noble reasons for wanting such new game playing rules. When you know they only give you the ability to win against a higher level player without working to get high enough to win on your own merit.

Any new rules should be fair to all players. Not just to the newer or lower level players that want a easy solution.

Play the game and work your way up like others have. Then attack and win sometimes against higher level players. Thats the only fair way to do it!

[Sharwing]

One loophole is this or any idea. That creates a short cut. I and others got higher with no new rules created to give us wins against strionger players.
Play the game the way it is. Asking for new rules that give newer players a advanatage older players never had is not what I call playing the game fair.

Don't be giving noble reasons for wanting such new game playing rules. When you know they only give you the ability to win against a higher level player without working to get high enough to win on your own merit.

Any new rules should be fair to all players. Not just to the newer or lower level players that want a easy solution.

Play the game and work your way up like others have. Then attack and win sometimes against higher level players. Thats the only fair way to do it!

I think you misread the suggestion mentioned in this thread, please read it again and then give your opinion.

You seem to state this proposed change will disadvantage the top players.  Lets take your case as an example.  Right now your top of the Hall of Fame and thus will have more than 150 settlements under your control.  Any loss of settlements (if you still have >= 150 settlements) from this proposed rule will not affect your mining capabilities.  Furthermore you would gain a small amount of MD from extra people attacking all your settlements trying to win them.

The players who would be disadvantaged by this proposed rule would be members of your alliance who themselves do not have any settlements yet gain an benefit from your hard work in from being top of the hall of fame.  This rule would make them work for their MD.

My "noble" reasons for proposing this rule were to make the game more interesting and dynamic, contrary to your beliefs about what I want and do not want!  Debate the concept, not my intentions.  The proposed rule is fair, it slightly evens up the settlement distribution across the player base.

[scottsinct]

The good thing about this idea is that it is fair to all players!  Lower level players can risk losing a lot of MD in hopes of gaining one or two otherwise unavailable settlements.  Strong players earn money each time the lower level players attack and fail (which is 90% of the time for a 1 level defense difference and 99.98% of the time for at 10 level difference).

How is that not fair?

I agree, the idea is good when the winning/losing percentages balance out these 3 factors:

-Settlement owners gaining some MD from failed attacks.
-Settlement attackers gaining a small number of settlements to increase their mining yields.
-Lower level players putting MD into the game to upgrade enough to win a few settlements.

Am I missing anything else in my calculations?  I can't see any possible loopholes players could exploit from this idea.

I believe Homestead attacking/defending should remain the same.

One loophole is this or any idea. That creates a short cut. I and others got higher with no new rules created to give us wins against strionger players.
Play the game the way it is. Asking for new rules that give newer players a advanatage older players never had is not what I call playing the game fair.

Don't be giving noble reasons for wanting such new game playing rules. When you know they only give you the ability to win against a higher level player without working to get high enough to win on your own merit.

Any new rules should be fair to all players. Not just to the newer or lower level players that want a easy solution.

Play the game and work your way up like others have. Then attack and win sometimes against higher level players. Thats the only fair way to do it!

[slyfox]

To funny!! You claim fair to all players. No it is not fair to all players. Anyone who work their way up to max levels earn that right to win or lose against other max out players.

How is that fair to max out players? By allowing newer players to win against them? After they earned their max out stats?

I already gave my activity attack log. No one needs a rule that only benefits newer players but harms older players. Just to get  what you claim will be a few more attacks. Their are more then enough attacks going on in the game.

You want to get the ability to win against max out players for free. Without playing the moves needed to earn the max out stats.

Your not the first new members that have tried to get rules change just to benefit them.

The rules are fair the way they are. Play the game and max out your levels like all the other top players have done. Then you can win against top level players.

[Sharwing]

To funny!! You claim fair to all players. No it is not fair to all players. Anyone who work their way up to max levels earn that right to win or lose against other max out players.

How is that fair to max out players?

You obviously didn't re-read the thread as I asked.  They get extra MD with minimal or no changes in their mining yield.

By allowing newer players to win against them?

Not newer players, people who win under this rule will most likely be only a few stat points difference.  Did you read the example percentages I posted at the start of the thread?  A player of 10 stat points difference will have a 1 in 5000 chance of winning.  If that player tried to gain a single settlement by attacking it once a day it would take him/her on average 13 years to gain that settlement.  These percentages can be adjusted up or down to fine tune the rule but your statement is false, newer players will very rarely win against max stat people like yourself.

After they earned their max out stats?

See above.

I already gave my activity attack log. No one needs a rule that only benefits newer players but harms older players. Just to get  what you claim will be a few more attacks. Their are more then enough attacks going on in the game.

Again: this rule doesn't only benefit "newer" players.  It fact it doesn't help players with 8 or less attacking stat points very much at all.  Do you have a fixation with "newer" players?

You want to get the ability to win against max out players for free. Without playing the moves needed to earn the max out stats.

I never said that, no one said that, again see above.

Your not the first new members that have tried to get rules change just to benefit them.

Currently if the rule was introduced it would disadvantage me.  I'm in an alliance with few players and many settlements, yet I do not currently govern any settlements.  The proposed rule will slightly decrease the amount of settlements in the alliance due to the few players hold them.  The top players in the alliance would still keep their 150 settlement max mining bonus but it would force players like me to seek out my own settlements and work harder for the alliance (ie upgrade my stats and fight for settlements).

I proposed this rule to make the game more interesting, rather than having the current flat win/loss percentages (100% win if greater attack than defense levels).

The rules are fair the way they are. Play the game and max out your levels like all the other top players have done. Then you can win against top level players.

See above.

[PenPen]

*Applauds*  

[Sharwing]

*Applauds*  

Thanks, but I think Admin could be a bit uncertain or ambivalent towards this idea.  Oh well, the info and debate is here if he wants it.