Sacking

[Death]

It was explained to me that at FAF you can sack an empire is you can break them with troops. I don't know about you but that seems way too easy to me. I understand that this was done to nerf Spys somewhat, but it seems to me that you have just turned the tables. I think doing something like making Sack into an attack that uses all 4 units (like an STD) would help balance it out.

Reason being right now an Indy that knows what they are doing can just monostack and sack pretty much anyone they want to, be they Spy, Farmer, Casher, or even another Indy in most cases, which creates a pretty unfavorable environment for everyone besides Indys. Especially Farmers and Cashers though, because now they are weak against both Indys and Spies.

This seems like a pretty obvious thing to fix to attract more players, and going a bit further might even be for the best.

Discuss, I need feedback to make it mo' betta'.

[maddog]

i would agree with that summoning up of facts except that prior to the changes a cashier and farmer probably relied on heavily on market storing to make a good net at the end of set. I think with the new changes land is probably gonna be less available as people r gonna be left with two choices either have lots of troops out and probably monostacking on one sort or less troops and lots of gold in there accounts which a farmer cashier and even a mager would more then likely have. which would the favour a indier as all the would need to do is steal the gold /or food cash it in for more troops.

a few sets ago the strat i used i had loads of gold out and 0 troops which although i was bringing on average an extra 10k of land per a run into the game i lost 90% of the gold i had due to a person attacking me not for the land that i had but all the gold i had which by the time i made my next run i had almost no gold and most of the land i had was taken by others making land runs. so i ahd to change my strat slightly to what its it s now i can still bring in extra land however i relied on market storing for a good net at end of set as well as a way of making extra gold in the bank that couldnt of been touched. these new changes pretty much negate that strat i use. as i siad in the changes topic the only people that can benefit from these changes r clans. these new changes pretty much makes a solo running non profitable. therefore forcing people to clan

[Death]

Reminds me, maybe Towers could reduce the amount lost per Sack now too. I'll come up with some ratios once I get more feedback.

[Freenhult]

Interesting idea. I'm not sure what the current sack values are but its a lot. The easist solution is to just reduce the % down to something smaller.

[Death]

Bump.

[Devari]

Hm... From Ruddertail and my year-old proposal, we see:

4. Sacking will be considerably less powerful. Without any kind of additional modifiers (due to heroes (or racial abilities, if those are added)), sack will now only take 2-3% of the opponent's resources on hand.
5. Sacking will be, like offensive hawk missions, affected by shielding. However, shields will only reduce the loss by 1/3rd, instead of 2/3rds like for hawk missions.

Honestly, those are trivial things to implement. The question then becomes: Do we need to make it Standard Attack-only, or is that nerf enough?

[edit] Standard Attack-only would make me lean towards 4-6% sacking, but I dunno.

[The Beatles]

SD sacking would virtually eliminate it as a viable strategy. Indies stack, almost always monostack, only those who buy can afford to have a wide variety of troops. So that would, I think, be going too far. We can simply reduce the percentages as per the above proposal.

By the way: where is the above proposal, is it complete, and if so, why hasn't anything been done about it (was it up to me?) ?

[Freenhult]

I think we should just use double units. We have the Otters/Mice and Otters/Squirrels attacks. Code them for Sacking. I'd say 3-5% of the resources would be logical with a 2 troop attack.

[Death]

SD sacking would virtually eliminate it as a viable strategy. Indies stack, almost always monostack, only those who buy can afford to have a wide variety of troops. So that would, I think, be going too far. We can simply reduce the percentages as per the above proposal.

By the way: where is the above proposal, is it complete, and if so, why hasn't anything been done about it (was it up to me?) ?

Stealing from others should not be a viable strat in the first place, it should be more of a boost. Plus with the new system of cash leaking out of the bank, it's just more powerful.

I think I missed the point of your post though. Yes an Indy can monostack and sack most anyone, that sounds like one hell of a problem to me.

[Devari]

I kinda lean towards the 2-3% sack with 1/3rd shielding. It's trivial to implement, provides fairly reasonable numbers, and doesn't complicate things. In that case, I think single troop attacks are reasonable - after all, a smart player is only going to get hit for 1.33-2%, which is fairly trivial.

Beatles, it's a topic in Dev called something like "market reforms". The rest of it was eventually implemented in the January update, so this is really the only relevant section left.

[Devari]

It does, however, retain some usefulness for sack; in all, it's a simple change that should address the problem.

[Devari]

SD sacking would virtually eliminate it as a viable strategy. Indies stack, almost always monostack, only those who buy can afford to have a wide variety of troops. So that would, I think, be going too far. We can simply reduce the percentages as per the above proposal.

By the way: where is the above proposal, is it complete, and if so, why hasn't anything been done about it (was it up to me?) ?

Stealing from others should not be a viable strat in the first place, it should be more of a boost. Plus with the new system of cash leaking out of the bank, it's just more powerful.

I think I missed the point of your post though. Yes an Indy can monostack and sack most anyone, that sounds like one hell of a problem to me.

I think Beatles is simply saying that, under the Standard Attack proposal, Indies would be less able to sack, simply because they can't afford to have the breadth of troops required for a successful attack. Since sacking really is supposed to be an indy thing, it's kinda self-defeating.

[Freenhult]

I think we should just use double units. We have the Otters/Mice and Otters/Squirrels attacks. Code them for Sacking. I'd say 3-5% of the resources would be logical with a 2 troop attack.

;-; Is this not a good idea?

[Devari]

It overcomplicates things. How would that work on the attack page? You'd have the sacking options, you'd key yourself up to go, and then it would pop up saying "You can only do this with the combined troop attacks!" It's easier this way, to be honest. The sacking options would be there, but basically useless for most attacks; it's needless clutter and confusing to the newbies.

There's nothing wrong with monosacking, as long as it's not ridiculously high amounts that are being taken. In fact, Spy Steal is like a monosack, when it comes down to it. If I'm an Indy, I'm not going to have the hawks to fend it off; I can only shield. Since the above proposal includes shielding, it really just makes sacking a somewhat weaker version of Spy Steal - which is what it's supposed to be.

[Slasher]

I think we should just use double units. We have the Otters/Mice and Otters/Squirrels attacks. Code them for Sacking. I'd say 3-5% of the resources would be logical with a 2 troop attack.

I've been thinking this all the way through this thread, not reading any posts after this but replying to say I agree with this idea.