what makes an attack dishonourable

Max

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,015
Location
London
CF's argument is that if you send on an attack and expect to win it, then that is not a fair fight, as you win and the enemy loses.

So according to CF's logical deduction, an RPG zeroing a robotics player at 70% of him is not fighting fair, since he obliterates the enemy knowing he can win. He in fact relies on the fact that the battle is indeed unfair, in his favour.

What CF's logic does not take into account is the grand scheme, that each player has the choice of what route they take and each has it's own pros and cons. So a player attacking at 30% can usually easily demolish any enemy, even if it's their usual enemy, due to having such an overwhelming army size. However, if that same player were to attack at 70%, the number of targets and the challenge does become greater, since the enemy in question has the "POTENTIAL" to be more difficult to kill.

The question of a "fair fight" comes down to this: people at a similar score have the same potential. Yes, one may develop RPGs and the other SAs, giving the latter an advantage. But another at the same score may develop Robos.

It is a greater challenge to attack at scores closer to your own because of the fact that the enemy has a greater potential to inflict damage, and it comes down to route choice/setup/skill rather than just a simple "I'm bigger than you therefore I win".

So I think the idea of a "fair fight" is justified. Personally, I'd prefer a sliding scale as opposed to a strict 70% fair, 69% unfair approach, as CF mentioned.
 

Hobbezak

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
894
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
It is a greater challenge to attack at scores closer to your own because of the fact that the enemy has a greater potential to inflict damage, and it comes down to route choice/setup/skill rather than just a simple "I'm bigger than you therefore I win".
Nonsense imo.
A robo player at 70% has identical potential to inflict damage to an rpg as a robo player at 30%, i.e. none at all. There is absolutely nothing a robo player can do, not when he's attacked at 30%, and not when he's attacked at 70% (except obviously last tick in both cases).
It's clear to everyone that an SO at 70% has more potential against an rpg than a robo at 70%, as an SO has the possibility to change his route-setup from 10:1 assassin:SA to 1:10 assassin-SA (for example). A robo hasn't got the possibility to move from a mass PA to a mass SA ratio. Therefore route choice cannot be regarded the same way as route setup, as a route choice is a fixed element in a player's round.

So I wonder why one would claim that a fight RPG vs SO at 70% should be regarded as equally fair to a fight RPG vs robo at 70%, when a route choice is a fixed element in a round?
 

CFalcon

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
680
Location
Kent UK
Consider 2 RPG players of equal size. One attacks a robo player 80% of his score. Another hits an SA player 40% of his score. The robo gets wiped outright without being able to fire a shot back. The SA player also gets wiped, but manages to do some damage back. Who would feel more hard-done by in this situation? Who got the fairer deal? Did the robo player get twice as fair a deal as the SA? Does the RPG who attacked the robo deserve to be classed as honourable while the one who attacked the SA deserves to be classed as dishonourable? Does the robo player feel any less hard-done-by when someone reminds him that he *could* have picked SAs at round start?

Also, consider 2 identical robo players. One gets attacked by an RPG with 2000 acres who is 75% of his score. The other gets attacked by an RPG with 10000 acres who is 200% of his score. Both RPG players have equal RPG counts, and both demolish their robo targets. Does the RPG with 2000 acres deserve huge amounts of honour while the one on 10000 deserves to lose huge amounts of honour?

I'm not saying that size has absolutely no role to play in determining fairness, but it is hugely simplistic to call it the only factor.
 

Max

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,015
Location
London
In regards to your first point with the two RPG players, it is a matter of opinion for sure. However, I would personally argue that that the demolished robo DOES get a more fair demolition than the SA :D

This is because the robo player KNOWS that in picking the robotics route, he in vulnerable to getting destroyed by an RPG. The number of people at a similar score to him who have the POTENTIAL to kill him is much less than the number of people at 300% of his score who can kill him. The poor SO player at 40% who gets wiped by an RPG player is given a pretty raw deal, since pretty much anyone at 250% of his score can kill him.

Even then, the RPG needs to buy enough RPGs in order to zero the Robo, else he suffers significant damage. Each player still has to choose how to setup his/her route to the best advantage on the whole, against the entire playerbase, not a 1-on-1 fairness check.

As for the second point about acres, certainly another matter of opinion! You could argue that in choosing to remain so land fat, the player with 10k acres has 'chosen' to sacrifice his ability to fight fairly. You could argue that is a load of tosh and that there should be no 'fairness' penalty.

The other alternative is just to use troop score as the measure of fairness. Unfortunately, since acres and troop score are so inseparable in public in-game-score, there is no easy way to apply this. This would, however, I would argue be indeed more fair.

And you are absolutely right to say size is only a factor, I just think that overall it is the best one to use as a measure of fairness!
 

willymchilybily

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,418
Location
uk
CF's argument is that if you send on an attack and expect to win it, then that is not a fair fight, as you win and the enemy loses.

So according to CF's logical deduction, an RPG zeroing a robotics player at 70% of him is not fighting fair, since he obliterates the enemy knowing he can win. He in fact relies on the fact that the battle is indeed unfair, in his favour.

What CF's logic does not take into account is the grand scheme, that each player has the choice of what route they take and each has it's own pros and cons. So a player attacking at 30% can usually easily demolish any enemy, even if it's their usual enemy, due to having such an overwhelming army size. However, if that same player were to attack at 70%, the number of targets and the challenge does become greater, since the enemy in question has the "POTENTIAL" to be more difficult to kill.

The question of a "fair fight" comes down to this: people at a similar score have the same potential. Yes, one may develop RPGs and the other SAs, giving the latter an advantage. But another at the same score may develop Robos.

It is a greater challenge to attack at scores closer to your own because of the fact that the enemy has a greater potential to inflict damage, and it comes down to route choice/setup/skill rather than just a simple "I'm bigger than you therefore I win".

So I think the idea of a "fair fight" is justified. Personally, I'd prefer a sliding scale as opposed to a strict 70% fair, 69% unfair approach, as CF mentioned.

this although true (mostly) to my mind, it misses the whole point of the original thread. That if that target is solo. it doesnt matter if you hit at 30% or 70% the amount of troops you can send to target 'X' when he has 21% AR is the same whether you are 150x his size. or 330x his size.

and further more the amount of troops you own is equal to or more than what can be sent when attacking at 70%. which is what my original first long winded post was trying to prove. That it only matters when attacking allies what range you hit, as you can oversend.

Just saying like CF we cant be so black and white in assuming hitting at 30% is mean and horrible and hitting at 70% isnt. and certainly dont be so narrowminded if you play the game to think people hitting at 30% are killing the game and people hitting at 70% arent, even if thats how the game's mechanics judge it.

there is one very subtle difference. As i was briber i wanted few troops but enough to bribe. i noticed the land those had at 30% was not much less than those at 70% ergo in that circumstance there is a difference of what troops you fight. but it is not my fault if naturally lower ranks are land fat, like enrico implied its easier to hit at 70% at rank 200 than 70% at rank 100. and i should not be given abuse ingame because i attacked a solo at 30%. when i could have done it with the same army and land at a lower ranking simply if all the units i didnt send were dead. because his size had no bearing on what i could send only his AR did. As long as the player base themselves realise this fact then i dont give a crap about the mechanics being screwy

ps. maxi the actual crunch line i find sits between 64% and 66% i can hit at 66% and be honourable according to the ingame mechanics. 64% is always not honourable. 65% is normally honourable sometimes isnt.


pps.
i only commented because CF's last post
Consider 2 RPG players of equal size. One attacks a robo player 80% of his score. Another hits an SA player 40% of his score. The robo gets wiped outright without being able to fire a shot back. The SA player also gets wiped, but manages to do some damage back.
which is intentionally only focused on allied players. as hitting a solo sa at 5% score with 21% AR as a rpg is equal to hitting an SA at 70% score with rpg if they are solo.

Sorry to side track the discussions evoloution but it had reached a very nice understanding i think where every one was on the same level and close to agreement. so coming full circle YAY
 
Last edited:

Enrico

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
518
I think CF missed my point, and I acknowledge I was a bit unclear...

I had to attack at 70% or above to gain honour, and fame, but I CHOOSE to attack "difficult" targets, as I wanted a certain amount of losses, both because that boosts fame, but also because that meant my own score would fluctuate and give me a larger amounts of targets I could honourably attack. As I played Harriers/Rangers, my "normal" targets would be Robos, Sorcs and SAs with few assassins, but I also choose to pick fights with Thugs, Assassin-heavy SAs, Bunkers, Strikers and RPGs, even if that meant I lost say 300 bill troops and the target lost 500 bill. Sometimes it was even/steven, if I had few targets around. The difference was that while I would attack a sorc at say 130% of my value, I would target a striker at 75%... that due to the route difference, and all in all that would be pretty equal fights per se.
 

Max

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,015
Location
London
Sorry for the deviation off-topic willy! I just thought it was an interesting logical discussion, and started blithering.

You are absolutely correct about the puppeteering, it's totally logical to hit at 30% to gain bribes off of a solo. I wouldn't argue with you there one bit!

Whether it is fair or not is certainly up for debate. I am strongly in agreement that a solo's real enemy is his AR modifier (or lack thereof!) and therefore normal ratings of h/f perhaps should not apply.

A possible counter-argument (that the attacking of a solo at 30% is indeed unfair) could be that the route setup for the attacker at 330% can be much more flexible and much more "safe" than the attacker at 100%. For example, a player at 100% of the enemy score sends 1m SAs to attack an RPG. He only has SAs, so this is a perfect, and efficient target for him. The player at 330% has 2m SAs, 1m Assassins and 1m Ninjas, and can flexibly choose to attack the tiny RPG without as much risk to himself. It is arguable that this is less fair.

I'm totally agreeing with you about the puppet attacks (I would do the same) but I think that there is still an argument that attacks on solos are LESS fair when you are much bigger than the enemy in question, since you've got less to lose. I don't think it is totally, absurdly unfair though, that's just silly ;P
 

CFalcon

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
680
Location
Kent UK
A possible counter-argument (that the attacking of a solo at 30% is indeed unfair) could be that the route setup for the attacker at 330% can be much more flexible and much more "safe" than the attacker at 100%. For example, a player at 100% of the enemy score sends 1m SAs to attack an RPG. He only has SAs, so this is a perfect, and efficient target for him. The player at 330% has 2m SAs, 1m Assassins and 1m Ninjas, and can flexibly choose to attack the tiny RPG without as much risk to himself. It is arguable that this is less fair.

I see your point, although I'd be lying if I said I agree. If it were possible to sell units and rebuy others, changing your setup at will, then I'd agree with you...

But as it stands, everyone has to try and do the best they can with what they've got. If a spec ops player has gone assassin heavy for his alliance, and only has a handful of SAs, is it more fair that he hits a robo at 80% or an rpg at 40%? As far as the rpg being hit is concerned, the spec ops might as well be 100% of him, as he has so few SAs.

This whole 'potential' stuff just leaves me feeling un-easy. If I shoot you in the face, you 'had the potential' to not get shot in the face, so it's fair for me to do so?
 

willymchilybily

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,418
Location
uk
A possible counter-argument (that the attacking of a solo at 30% is indeed unfair) could be that the route setup for the attacker at 330% can be much more flexible and much more "safe" than the attacker at 100%. For example, a player at 100% of the enemy score sends 1m SAs to attack an RPG. He only has SAs, so this is a perfect, and efficient target for him. The player at 330% has 2m SAs, 1m Assassins and 1m Ninjas, and can flexibly choose to attack the tiny RPG without as much risk to himself. It is arguable that this is less fair.

I see your point, although I'd be lying if I said I agree. If it were possible to sell units and rebuy others, changing your setup at will, then I'd agree with you...

i understand the argument on the basis that u keep more home to be able to defend with, and risk losing less of your total score, but this is almost countered by other effects aka u have a smaller %of men out but they are away for 4 ticks longer. you can potentially risk less but also potentially gain less due to caps. I can see comparatively, from the perspective of the attacker attacking solo's at 30% and risking less could be seen as less "honourable" than risking more to gain more. but in terms of the target, the target faces the exact same army. i guess it can go either way on that, depends on your opinion. i would say claiming it ruins the game...a bit far fetched

the concept that attacking the guy at 70% requires you to be set up to do so. where at 30% you likely have the right units for the job just sat as excess almost.... I think potentially yes an rpg at 3x the score of his counter part is likely to have more snipers. so he can likely take apart a small ranger heavy harrier player more easily than some one with the same unit ratios that is smaller. But that is very route dependant, and not every one has the same ratio/setup. So to me player A's route set up and choice of targets should not affect if player B's attack is fair or unfair. There is always some one set up to kill you and if they can only send £1 billion troops at you it still to me doesnt mater if he has £1,000,000,000,000,000 troops and can do it or has only £1billion troops and is set up to do it. I still think of it being equally honourable/fair for both. particularly when caps and +2 eta are considered for the bigger guy

disclaimer
once again im only talking about solos with AR >20%
when I talk of honour it is not the games rating and standard of honour given in BR's. as i fully agree with rewarding attacking at over 66% there's less safety net if the guy buys up etc. i mean as an individuals sense of right and wrong / fair and unfair. sure the game should reward attacking higher ranked players, but 1v1, what do you consider fair. i see it as unfair to hit 30% allied players with my entire army and help. But if the target is solo and has AR, capping what you can send and the incoming is never more than 1.4x his size no matter who it comes from. i see it as perfectly honourable/fair at any range.
 
Last edited:
Top