Suicidal Defense

[alwaysnumb]

Heres a mad one
A defensive mob can be marked as suicide defense getting pumped up on deadly narcotics or nitro, for 1 tick this mob has double stats then all die with no injury/insurance.

 

[Davs]

kamikaze mode? Sounds hilariously awesome, but I can't help feeling that 0'ing yourself is generally something you aim to avoid in defence...

 

[Yang]

fun idea, but way too overpowered on heavy firing early INIT units such as strikers/rpgs...

 

[Dark_Angel]

An alliance defending inc it can't stop, with this mode, is effectively doubling their firepower - Thus the defence is no longer suicidal, but actionally quite reasonable and capable

A no from me sorry, interesting concept though.

 

[TehPantz]

An alliance defending inc it can't stop, with this mode, is effectively doubling their firepower - Thus the defence is no longer suicidal, but actionally quite reasonable and capable

A no from me sorry, interesting concept though.

But then they all die. And if the attackers recall, then would the narcotics still kill the troops? Makes it risky

 

[Dark_Angel]

Well, its still technically suicidal, in that the troops still all die, but many alliances entire fights on that basis anyway. What I mean is, the actual battle itself wouldn't be suicidal in the traditional sense (I.e we die horribly and do very little damage. It'd be a suicide, but doubling the firepower would mean the defence is substantially stronger)

 

[saint1d]

I think it's a very interesting idea that would need tweaking.

 

[alwaysnumb]

you could put limits on it
attacking company scores at a company must be x times bigger than defenders scores

 

[Dark_Angel]

Another consideration - Would the attacking player(s) be made aware of the "buff" in attack power, and if not, is this really fair?

If they are made aware, then they can simply recall. Meaning, I assume, the defence too can recall? If this is to be the case, then "suiciding" troops could be an effective way of making an attack bugger off, and is open to abuse?

 

[tobapopalos]

I'll be the one to say it.

This is an awful idea. It would make predicting BRs horrible for attackers. Some people would say the random factor is bad enough, but this would be a whole other level. It would make people recall on attacks they wouldn't otherwise recall on simply because of the possibility of there being this "suicide defence" in effect. So you'd end up with people only staying on attacks where there is no defence whatsoever. And that, my friend, is boring.

How often can you use this kamikaze? Once an hour? Once a day?

Not to mention balancing issues, as DA pointed out.

IMO it doesn't offer any improvement to gameplay and hasn't been thought through at all.

 

[alwaysnumb]

I have kinda thought it through but couldnt be bothered to type out loads of bollocks.

My main thinking is you can only buff a mob when the hostile mob could be completely outrageous.

 

[timtadams]

I was thinking no for mentioned reasons

But i think it could be applied differently

Rather than giving the user the option, instead give the defenders chance to recieve the buff, only if the attacking mob is many times that of the defenders.

So when you have 5 people massing some small member only 30-40% of each of them (which happens not insignificantly) give the defender a 30% (for example) chance to get double damage. There would be no need to kill the defending units (as per the kamakazi mode) as they are likely to all die anyway.

So for example
if total attaking mob value > 5*total defender value Then give buff

It would thus be similar to anti rape for alliances, but no where near as severe to the attacker.
It would not be triggered as easily as antirape
It WOULD be shown in a target spy, eg "the defenders have rallied in the face of certain death and will pump your ass with double damage".
The attacking value considered would be that of the value of the mobs sent (not total attacker value)
The defender value considered would be that of total defender value (not the value of the mobs sent)

 

[alwaysnumb]

Thats pretty much what I was thinking, hard to trigger, makes very little difference to the outcome, the attackers deserve it if it hurts a little bit. With the spies it would be funny and give the attackers something to think about on their massive overwhelming attack.

 

[willymchilybily]

although a curious and an intriguing idea. ultimately i think it would be too much like Exp. either overpowered or underpowered. and just another level of complexity we dont need as the amount it would be used id like to think would be so infrequent.

but the only real downside i do see becoming a reality if its based on the size of the incoming compared to the size of the target/defenders ignoring what has been sent but focusing on actual player scores not troop scores....then massing an alliance 4-5 player per target 1 real 2-3 fake. thats alot of fake flak mobs that will recieve double losses to pb mid tick, or to tyrants mid tick. and it will ffree up the gurus to send to a real that wasnt covered.

in short defence can be made alot easier even at the 5* player size scale suggested. it would affect alliance wars dynamic an incredible amount making it even harder to beat an alliance that can defend well/ plan well. this to my mind will just force even worse bashing to get the acres

 

[Dax]

Just, no. If you really are that bothered about bashing down, think of a way to make negative H/F a real pain in the arse to those with 50%+ - The people that generally speaking are doing the bashing.
Failing that, make a calculation/code for the injury/insurance:H/F ratio. That would give a nice solution to Azzer on a silver platter.

 

[timtadams]

although a curious and an intriguing idea. ultimately i think it would be too much like Exp. either overpowered or underpowered. and just another level of complexity we dont need as the amount it would be used id like to think would be so infrequent.

but the only real downside i do see becoming a reality if its based on the size of the incoming compared to the size of the target/defenders ignoring what has been sent but focusing on actual player scores not troop scores....then massing an alliance 4-5 player per target 1 real 2-3 fake. thats alot of fake flak mobs that will recieve double losses to pb mid tick, or to tyrants mid tick. and it will ffree up the gurus to send to a real that wasnt covered.

in short defence can be made alot easier even at the 5* player size scale suggested. it would affect alliance wars dynamic an incredible amount making it even harder to beat an alliance that can defend well/ plan well. this to my mind will just force even worse bashing to get the acres

It would be based on the attacking mobs value (not player value). Just like AR. So trigger if attacking mob value > 5* defending player value.
Im just not sure whether the value for defenders should be based on target only, or should also include defenders player values or defenders mob values

Also, it could be made more like AR. So it triggers at 5* (or whatever, it doesnt have to be 5*) only if there are lethals. If its a flak mob and no lethals, then alternatively you could let it trigger at 8* or 10*.

OR, let it trigger at 5*, but let the buff only be like 5% or 10% rather than 100%...

 

[No-Dachi]

Great. A pom three times my size attacks me (and for the sake of argument, let's say he's got 1 hypno in there too!), and not only do I lose acres, I lose my whole army without hurting him back at all, because all my shiny units with twice the firepower is already blocked. Perfect!

And what about gards/harvs. Do they die? Hippies, yobs?

 

[LuckySports]

They were talking about 5x your size.. ^_^ and said that if you took the option to do it yourself away (making it automated) you don't lose your troops (except what get killed ofc)

 

[timtadams]

I guess I will clarify what i was saying as two posters have read it completely wrong

It would be like AR

If Attacking (mob) value >= a* Defending (player) value, Then Give buff

where 'a' could be any number. Instead of complaining about it, PICK ONE. EG, i have suggested 5. It doesnt have to be 5!

The buff could be double damage. The defenders/targets troops do NOT automatically die. (as per my new suggestion)

Basically the idea is that this extra damage comes into effect when we have like 5+ players attacking one player at 40% (for example). IF the target is sent defence, then the values of the players (NOT the mobs they sent) are added to defender value, so it is harder to trigger.

If the attackers sent flak then it is obviously highly unlikey to trigger. Unless they seriously overkill it, in which case the buff is highly unlikely to stop that flak.

I did in my original suggestion say that if the trigger is satisfied, then there will be a chance to trigger (so it wont necessarily happen) but I'm not necessarily in support of this idea.

On another note, I love how people just shoot down suggestions by just looking at whats presented in front of them. Why dont you SUGGEST AN ALTERNATIVE? Modify the values if you think they are overpowered, suggest a different approach to implementation. Think! This should be about constructive conversation, where we try to make a suggestion viable, and only discarding it when we cant arrive at a reasonable outcome.

Instead of saying 5* is too low and this will have drastic effects on attack outcomes (which is NOT the desired outcome of this suggestion) suggest a possibly higher value, OR a reduced buff (like a 50% increase in damage, rather then 100%)

 

[alwaysnumb]

thanks Tim thats why I was so vague in my description so as people can make their own conclusions rather than get bogged down in the numbers and concerned about balance.