How does this work?

[Ezekiel]

Rather than make a thread I'll stick this gripe in here:

I just got attacked by someone 173% of my score, who had 2 million LET all but, made up of grens, heavys and officers. I have no lets, just some SDs and yobs. He wiped out all my flak (thats it, just flak) and got:

1st tick
You gained 37,135 effectiveness.
You gained 50.70 fame.
You gained 30.04 honour.
You earned £183,639,625 bounty.
Second tick
You gained 10,786 effectiveness.
You gained 44.21 fame.
You gained 26.69 honour.
You earned £77,504,490 bounty.

third tick
You gained 2,608 effectiveness.
You gained 0.31 fame.
You gained 4.19 honour.
You earned £20,178,499 bounty.

How is that an Honorable attack? And just flak? He crippled my ability to plant/grow so he could get some cheap and easy H/F gains. kills 8-9 mill flak and gets all that, while when i successfully defend and stop someone landing 260% of my score, I get:

You gained 1,694 effectiveness.
You gained 5.05 fame.
You gained 4.43 honour.

That doesnt seem right to me. Let alone people are now farming H/F.

 

[Azzer]

I should point out that he wasn't 173% of your score when he launched his attack on you. That was after he had attacked and killed you, and he has since planted up too

 

[Ezekiel]

Thanks for making me looking like an idiot an turning it into a thread lol.

But srsly. Is H/F therefore that score based? I understand a 'honorable attack' is hard-ish to quantify in numbers but it seems a bit absurd, the differences between flak raping and actual honorable defending.

 

[willymchilybily]

damage done vs damage recieved. in terms of flak raping. or attacking some one with no lethals/ranged attackers. So if you do an attack 80% and over you do alot more damage to the target than you recieve(as you recieve none) so on that basis yeah you get good h/f as they are big but still you creamed them. or at least thats what the system sees. whether its flak or not. probably why on the last tick the gains were negligable by comparison.

So i dont think you can really modify or change the system to accomodate for people having a cheap shot at an easy target for a quick h/f boost. Just make sure you're not an easy target

 

[Ezekiel]

So it's purely because I didn't kill anything? Isn't H/F value based like Bounty then? Surely that would make a lot more sense. And might make it fairer for Prots? You earn more h/f for honurable attacks/defends against high value targets.

 

[Cheese]

So it's purely because I didn't isn't H/F value based like Bounty then? Surely that would make a lot more sense. And might make it fairer for Prots? You earn more h/f for honurable attacks/defends against high value targets.

funny how you said make a lot more sense. 'I didn't isn't H/F'.

 

[willymchilybily]

Ezekiel please read the manual, it is like that already attacking 70% nets you FA H/F below 70% = -ve H/F and the bigger the target the better the HF. consider 70% = neutral attacking neither honourably nor dishonourably. and the further each side of that you attack the bigger the honour/dishonour multiplied by some factor of your success.

BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO DAMAGE THEM! and if you do more damage against them than they do to you, you'll get alot more h/f. which is what your attacker did.

it is a fair system even if some parts could be tweaked. disables/distracts vs. kills.

http://www.bushtarion.com/manual/index.php?S=2&E=9

summed up with this quote "The more successful you are in these activities and the harder the odds, the more honour you can gain."

 

[Ezekiel]

So it's purely because I didn't isn't H/F value based like Bounty then? Surely that would make a lot more sense. And might make it fairer for Prots? You earn more h/f for honurable attacks/defends against high value targets.

funny how you said make a lot more sense. 'I didn't isn't H/F'.

My iPhone decided to tweak out while I was typing a deleted part of my sentence.

But thanks once again for your stereotypical, brilliant input. If you have a problem with me then message me rather than trying to jab at me like a little child.

Ezekiel please read the manual, it is like that already attacking 70% nets you FA H/F below 70% = -ve H/F and the bigger the target the better the HF. consider 70% = neutral attacking neither honourably nor dishonourably. and the further each side of that you attack the bigger the honour/dishonour multiplied by some factor of your success.

BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO DAMAGE THEM! and if you do more damage against them than they do to you, you'll get alot more h/f. which is what your attacker did.

it is a fair system even if some parts could be tweaked. disables/distracts vs. kills.

How would reading the manual help me with my original point that killing off some flak is far more profitable than successfully defending? That isn't an 'honorable' attack, and I was definitely 'successful' in mine. And He was a much closer target to me than the guy I defended against. If you think that is a fair system then you and I clearly have different definitions of the word. Tweaked is kind of a understatement.

 

[Cheese]

So it's purely because I didn't isn't H/F value based like Bounty then? Surely that would make a lot more sense. And might make it fairer for Prots? You earn more h/f for honurable attacks/defends against high value targets.

funny how you said make a lot more sense. 'I didn't isn't H/F'.

My iPhone decided to tweak out while I was typing a deleted part of my sentence.

But thanks once again for your stereotypical, brilliant input. If you have a problem with me then message me rather than trying to jab at me like a little child.

Ezekiel please read the manual, it is like that already attacking 70% nets you FA H/F below 70% = -ve H/F and the bigger the target the better the HF. consider 70% = neutral attacking neither honourably nor dishonourably. and the further each side of that you attack the bigger the honour/dishonour multiplied by some factor of your success.

BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO DAMAGE THEM! and if you do more damage against them than they do to you, you'll get alot more h/f. which is what your attacker did.

it is a fair system even if some parts could be tweaked. disables/distracts vs. kills.

How would reading the manual help me with my original point that killing off some flak is far more profitable than successfully defending? That isn't an 'honorable' attack, and I was definitely 'successful' in mine. And He was a much closer target to me than the guy I defended against. If you think that is a fair system then you and I clearly have different definitions of the word. Tweaked is kind of a understatement.

I was just trying to help no need to start trolling sheesh man. Can't you learn to take a joke once in a while? And you are implying I'm childish... well if you were so much more mature you wouldn't have such a need to reply to something so childish now would you

 

[willymchilybily]

How is that an Honorable attack? And just flak? He crippled my ability to plant/grow so he could get some cheap and easy H/F gains. kills 8-9 mill flak and gets all that.

How would reading the manual help me with my original point that killing off some flak is far more profitable than successfully defending?

Honour can be achieved through...

and through attacking people similar in size to yourself or larger. The more successful you are in these activities and the harder the odds, the more honour you can gain.....

if you do an attack 80% and over you do a lot more damage to the target than you receive(as you receive none) so on that basis yeah you get good h/f as they are big but still you creamed them.

you complained at how much honour he got in your original post. I was trying to point out why he got a lot. (kills with no losses at probably around 80% range = successful & honourable attack)

Where as you simply stopped some flak. (the cost of flak being cheap ergo not that much score of his total value got disabled/distracted, the odds were not as heavily against you on a unit score basis)

Manual explains this... but i agree with your point, that disabling and distracting seems to net far less h/f than perhaps it should. but that was also cheeses point in a suggestion he made,
http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4149
I assumed you were trying to bring something original to the table.

Sorry if I offended you by inferring you hadn't read the manual, maybe you simply misinterpreted it like you did my previous post. Maybe I should be less brash when giving my interpretation of events in the help and support section. My apologies.

 

[Hobbezak]

In sort of the same way:
I get attacked by someone 320% of me:
[range] 6,000,000 allied Psychopathic Android attacked, killing 503,824 hostile staff.
[range] 9,690,212 hostile Striker attacked, killing 8,081,447 allied staff.
[range] 2,036,663 allied Cybernetic Warrior attacked, killing 16,176,915 hostile staff.
[range] 705,816 hostile Grenadier attacked, killing 3,151,313 allied staff.
[range] 24 allied Automoton attacked, killing 73 hostile staff.
[range] 20,557 allied Tyrant Drone attacked, killing 697,395 hostile staff.

Died: 17,378,207 [£162,605,975,600] enemies dead. 11,232,760 [£631,011,904,800] friendlies dead.

You gained 328,610 effectiveness.
You gained 9.82 fame.
You gained 17.24 honour.
You will soon be receiving £125,395,740,200 insurance.

I do think I kill a rather decent amount, considering he's 320% and counterroute. So why do I only get 17 honour?
Earlier I lost 74 from just sending geo's in a sort of wave, at 55%.
Can I conclude from this that it takes 4.3x getting annihilated by someone way larger than you, to compensate for sending pure geo-flak in a wave and landing (at 55%)?

 

[zhouj]

In sort of the same way:
I get attacked by someone 320% of me:
[range] 6,000,000 allied Psychopathic Android attacked, killing 503,824 hostile staff.
[range] 9,690,212 hostile Striker attacked, killing 8,081,447 allied staff.
[range] 2,036,663 allied Cybernetic Warrior attacked, killing 16,176,915 hostile staff.
[range] 705,816 hostile Grenadier attacked, killing 3,151,313 allied staff.
[range] 24 allied Automoton attacked, killing 73 hostile staff.
[range] 20,557 allied Tyrant Drone attacked, killing 697,395 hostile staff.

Died: 17,378,207 [£162,605,975,600] enemies dead. 11,232,760 [£631,011,904,800] friendlies dead.

You gained 328,610 effectiveness.
You gained 9.82 fame.
You gained 17.24 honour.
You will soon be receiving £125,395,740,200 insurance.

I do think I kill a rather decent amount, considering he's 320% and counterroute. So why do I only get 17 honour?
Earlier I lost 74 from just sending geo's in a sort of wave, at 55%.
Can I conclude from this that it takes 4.3x getting annihilated by someone way larger than you, to compensate for sending pure geo-flak in a wave and landing (at 55%)?

To be fair, I didn't send all my LETs at you, so not precisely 320%.

However, it's a bit ridiculous that you only get +17 honor when I got -119.73.

You lost 33,880 effectiveness.
You gained 16.94 fame.
You lost 119.73 honour.

I'm also guessing getting a mob to af3 on someone triggers the repeat attack counter, because that -honor is abnormal, even for attacking at 30%.

 

[tobapopalos]

I do think I kill a rather decent amount, considering he's 320% and counterroute. So why do I only get 17 honour?
Earlier I lost 74 from just sending geo's in a sort of wave, at 55%.
Can I conclude from this that it takes 4.3x getting annihilated by someone way larger than you, to compensate for sending pure geo-flak in a wave and landing (at 55%)?

You weren't online, so it wasn't honourable that you stayed to fight him. You didn't have a choice.

 

[Hobbezak]

I do think I kill a rather decent amount, considering he's 320% and counterroute. So why do I only get 17 honour?
Earlier I lost 74 from just sending geo's in a sort of wave, at 55%.
Can I conclude from this that it takes 4.3x getting annihilated by someone way larger than you, to compensate for sending pure geo-flak in a wave and landing (at 55%)?

You weren't online, so it wasn't honourable that you stayed to fight him. You didn't have a choice.

Actually I was online when I received the incoming, just not during the battle.

edit: Does this mean that if I go offline during an attack at 30%, I lose less honour, because I didn't have a choice?

 

[atsanjose]

I do think I kill a rather decent amount, considering he's 320% and counterroute. So why do I only get 17 honour?
Earlier I lost 74 from just sending geo's in a sort of wave, at 55%.
Can I conclude from this that it takes 4.3x getting annihilated by someone way larger than you, to compensate for sending pure geo-flak in a wave and landing (at 55%)?

You weren't online, so it wasn't honourable that you stayed to fight him. You didn't have a choice.

Actually I was online when I received the incoming, just not during the battle.

edit: Does this mean that if I go offline during an attack at 30%, I lose less honour, because I didn't have a choice?

no silly, you choose to attack.

 

[Hobbezak]

I do think I kill a rather decent amount, considering he's 320% and counterroute. So why do I only get 17 honour?
Earlier I lost 74 from just sending geo's in a sort of wave, at 55%.
Can I conclude from this that it takes 4.3x getting annihilated by someone way larger than you, to compensate for sending pure geo-flak in a wave and landing (at 55%)?

You weren't online, so it wasn't honourable that you stayed to fight him. You didn't have a choice.

Actually I was online when I received the incoming, just not during the battle.

edit: Does this mean that if I go offline during an attack at 30%, I lose less honour, because I didn't have a choice?

no silly, you choose to attack.

I didn't have the choice to recall tho :O

 

[atsanjose]

bla

You weren't online, so it wasn't honourable that you stayed to fight him. You didn't have a choice.

Actually I was online when I received the incoming, just not during the battle.

edit: Does this mean that if I go offline during an attack at 30%, I lose less honour, because I didn't have a choice?

no silly, you choose to attack.

I didn't have the choice to recall tho :O

just because you couldnt be arsed to stay online doesnt mean you dont have a choice...
+ werent you in sleepmode when you got killed?

 

[willymchilybily]

in addition you'rd probably still be logged in, and the code probably only works like that for defence. i think if you attack and go offline you get the same effectiveness (and h/f gains/losses). or at least it always seemed to me when i launch an attack and go to bed on the odd occasion that it doesnt really affect my effectiveness by any noticable amount. if H/f works in this way the same is probably true for it.