Why Do People Have To Ruin This Game

[LilJohn]

Why do so many people have to try to ruin this game. I like this game but at some point it's useless trying to gain anything. I lost over $6 million to 3 or 4 people today. I can't check my phone every minute to hurry and vault my money. So the same person keeps attacking me for hours draining me of millions. How am I suppose to save up when people do this ? But EVERY single time I try to attack back i can't because they're in retreat. What gives? They should have a cap on how many times you can attack a person. If this keeps up I'm just going to delete this app because it's pointless when you can never level up or save money to buy anything. Storm8 needs to put a limit on the number of attacks and money loss. And let you attack back instead of saying they retreating. Enough said !!!!!!!!

[pengbo]

Why do so many people have to try to ruin this game. I like this game but at some point it's useless trying to gain anything. I lost over $6 million to 3 or 4 people today. I can't check my phone every minute to hurry and vault my money. So the same person keeps attacking me for hours draining me of millions. How am I suppose to save up when people do this ? But EVERY single time I try to attack back i can't because they're in retreat. What gives? They should have a cap on how many times you can attack a person. If this keeps up I'm just going to delete this app because it's pointless when you can never level up or save money to buy anything. Storm8 needs to put a limit on the number of attacks and money loss. And let you attack back instead of saying they retreating. Enough said !!!!!!!!

They already have a CAP it's called defensive buildings. Get some. In fact spend lots of time getting lots and then you wil not have to:

1. Vault all your money all the time
2. Worry about getting attacked multiple times.

Please stop complaining and learn how to play the game.

[Unregistered]

Hey man, I felt the same way about a month ago. It was frustrating, but I just went ahead and really focused on buying TONS of defensive buildings and income buildings. Over a short time, less and less were able to beat me. Now I rarely get beat, even with the new rules.

A hint I can give you that helped me was I always knew when I was going to get paid, so I made sure I could try and attack some people until my health was nearly depleted. I kept it that way for a long time, that way I didn't always have to bank my money and anytime anyone tried to attack me, I had to retreat sine I didn't have enough health.

The guy above is right, learn how to play the game and build up your defenses. If you get paid every 30 minutes after the hour, try to at least get to your phone, even if you're at work, and just spend the two minutes it takes to wait , get get paid, then bank. Then go back to work unless your work makes this too difficult. This game is a weird balance of hands on hands off work....Good luck!




Why do so many people have to try to ruin this game. I like this game but at some point it's useless trying to gain anything. I lost over $6 million to 3 or 4 people today. I can't check my phone every minute to hurry and vault my money. So the same person keeps attacking me for hours draining me of millions. How am I suppose to save up when people do this ? But EVERY single time I try to attack back i can't because they're in retreat. What gives? They should have a cap on how many times you can attack a person. If this keeps up I'm just going to delete this app because it's pointless when you can never level up or save money to buy anything. Storm8 needs to put a limit on the number of attacks and money loss. And let you attack back instead of saying they retreating. Enough said !!!!!!!!

[Blownapart]

Unfortunately this game is designed to be addictive, and played as much as possible.. It sounds as if you are not addicted enough, that's all.

What you are essentially asking for is to be able to coast through the game with minimal effort from your part. Not only that, you are asking for MORE effort from the opponents who are putting in the time and besting you at the moment.

There will never be caps on attacks because that is what makes this game go 'round. Being able to attack often and without reserve essentially keeps attackers attacking, and defenders defending. I dare say it is the single most important element that makes people purchase HP points. So S8 would be fools to shoot themselves in the foot and ban farming.

[Bommando]

Vaulting isn't hard. Just do it if you don't have a good enough defence. Once you start earning good money, max out on defence ASAP. You'd be surprised how few people will attack you when it all seems too hard.

Because I feel sorry for you, I'll give you the lazy farmer's modus operandi. I, like you, don't have a lot of time to play games. I like this game because it allows me to log in for a minute here and a minute there. But, I'm also quite competitive, so I like to play the combat elements as much as possible. I have a 90% W/L ratio as it is and I don't really pay a lot of attention. Here's the easy guide to reducing frustration for 1 minute every hour and maybe 10 minutes every morning.

- When you're about to exit WW, check the countdown to your next paycheck. As soon as you log out, go to your clock app and set a timer for that many minutes. When your timer goes off, log in and immediately vault your cash. I tend to also attack a few of my fat cows during this time to lower my health below 27. This takes about 1-2 minutes every hour. No big deal.

Alternatively, if you want to save on the vault fee, just spend it all straight away. Max your defensive units first, then start investing in defensive buildings. Do this when your timer goes off every hour. Again, only takes maybe an extra minute.

- In the morning when I get up, I usually have a lot of cash saved up from not banking. I spend all of this on income buildings, because they're more expensive and tend to cost larger blocks of cash.

Good farmers will almost always keep their health below 27 and have a few linked cows on tap. Whenever my health is high, I drop it down again to limit retaliation and prevent myself from losing money from sanctions. I am largely immune to attacks from people of equal level to me due to having a maxed defence. I only need fear high-level sanctions, which I stave off by keeping my health low or vaulting my cash if I'm short on time.

So, in summary, if you're super short on time, hourly timer and vault then exit. About 15 minutes a day max for a loss of 10%.

If you have an extra 10 minutes to spare, just spend your cash as soon as you make it on defence.

While I should probably kick myself for giving out this advice, I'm sure there are plenty of people left out there who don't read the forums :)

[LilJohn]

I totally understand what yall saying. Sorry for coming off as if I was trying to just sit back and let the game play itself. It's very additive for me. Guess I was a Lil upset to see almost 10 million gone. So what does everybody suggest I buy to build my defense up to stop losing all the time? I'm banking $550,500 an hour right now. Thanks sorry if I came off complaining.

[Unregistered]

i actually agree with the guy about retreats. in many text based mmorpgs, people are able to at least (and have a right to) counter those who attack them regardless of health points the aggressor has. it is standard common sense and logic (yes i'm aware of the 'it's just a game' argument) but it seems like this game tries to be realistic with every update.

so why not take this into account, the idea that someone who has been attacked has the right to counter regardless of 'retreat mode'. nevertheless the 'retreat mode' should still protect the aggressor from others who can attack him, just not from the player whom he has attacked before going into retreat.

lets call this the right to counter. i think it is a fair one to take into account.

-H

[Bommando]

so why not take this into account, the idea that someone who has been attacked has the right to counter regardless of 'retreat mode'. nevertheless the 'retreat mode' should still protect the aggressor from others who can attack him, just not from the player whom he has attacked before going into retreat.

lets call this the right to counter. i think it is a fair one to take into account.

I don't see why. The player who pays more attention, logs in more and depletes their health has the advantage. That's the way it should be. It's like that with most things in life. If you train more in football, you tend to get better at the game and get better results. Likewise, if you dedicate more time to WW, you'll get better results.

If you don't want to lose money, vault it or spend it. If you don't want to lose fights, build your defence and keep your health low, so people can't target you.

If you want to play casual, then that's your choice, but I don't see why you'd expect anything other than mediocre results for your efforts.

[Unregistered]

I don't see why. The player who pays more attention, logs in more and depletes their health has the advantage. That's the way it should be. It's like that with most things in life. If you train more in football, you tend to get better at the game and get better results. Likewise, if you dedicate more time to WW, you'll get better results.

If you don't want to lose money, vault it or spend it. If you don't want to lose fights, build your defence and keep your health low, so people can't target you.

If you want to play casual, then that's your choice, but I don't see why you'd expect anything other than mediocre results for your efforts.

i respect your perspective, but don't you see how it has instead added momentum to mine?

there is often a mistake of equating time spent in the game to a player's capabilities. i am suggesting that the 'time' factor, while important, be adjusted slightly to incorporate 'smart' play. so instead of playing more, you also need to play smart - which will improve a game's quality ... instead it being dictated by hard grinding and attrition.

my suggestion will allude to the requirement of a smarter game play (meaning a player is cautious, conscious and smart with every move). it will not accommodate to lazy campers, or overly aggressive addicts - instead it will make everyone think.

take your analogy. sure a footballer who trains everyday will be the better player. but compare him with another footballer who trains less, but takes into account the technicalities involved, right down to the nutrition or even time of the day to train etc. he is paying attention to detail and therefore reaps more rewards.

i am not a casual player. it is an unlucky and horrible fact people like you think in terms of binary opposites in this game; that is divided in two, either vault or not, build defence or not, get addicted or not etc. to be quite frank bommando, i've seen your stats and compared to mine, i don't think you're in the right to use 'mediocre' in your choice of words ... maybe for you.

this is not a personal attack, but i want people to realize that the people playing this game is not divided into a binarism of two. there are those making suggestions not purely for the interest of themselves (campers/farmers) but for the progress of the game as a whole. like me, i just want a smarter and more complex way to play.

-H

[Bommando]

I was referring specifically to your "free attack" proposition, which to me defeats the purpose of keeping one's health low to avoid retaliation, which I think is an example of smart and dedicated play.

I made it pretty clear that I'm a casual player in my earlier post. I agree with your notion of smart play, I'm just arguing against changing game dynamics to suit what I perceive as lazy gameplay. If I lose money, it's because I didn't spend it or vault it. If I lose a fight, it's because my defence wasn't up to scratch.

This isn't chest-beating. It's just game dynamics. I'm happy with where I am considering my low time investment and $0 spend.

[Blownapart]

i respect your perspective, but don't you see how it has instead added momentum to mine?

there is often a mistake of equating time spent in the game to a player's capabilities. i am suggesting that the 'time' factor, while important, be adjusted slightly to incorporate 'smart' play. so instead of playing more, you also need to play smart - which will improve a game's quality ... instead it being dictated by hard grinding and attrition.

my suggestion will allude to the requirement of a smarter game play (meaning a player is cautious, conscious and smart with every move). it will not accommodate to lazy campers, or overly aggressive addicts - instead it will make everyone think.

take your analogy. sure a footballer who trains everyday will be the better player. but compare him with another footballer who trains less, but takes into account the technicalities involved, right down to the nutrition or even time of the day to train etc. he is paying attention to detail and therefore reaps more rewards.

i am not a casual player. it is an unlucky and horrible fact people like you think in terms of binary opposites in this game; that is divided in two, either vault or not, build defence or not, get addicted or not etc. to be quite frank bommando, i've seen your stats and compared to mine, i don't think you're in the right to use 'mediocre' in your choice of words ... maybe for you.

this is not a personal attack, but i want people to realize that the people playing this game is not divided into a binarism of two. there are those making suggestions not purely for the interest of themselves (campers/farmers) but for the progress of the game as a whole. like me, i just want a smarter and more complex way to play.

-H

Good post, but I have a few issues with it:

- 'Time' : this game is ALL about time. When you started, income rounds, banking, time spent choosing your opponents, etc. There are no real immediate short cuts regarding time. There are long-term shortcuts, but these require time spent initially, as well as 'smarts'. I would not describe Bommando's 'smart shortcuts' as "hard grinding and attrition". Quite the opposite.

- The 'smart' players are the ones who (from the outset) have realised that this game is all about time and timing, and how to reduce time spent. As such you have numerous tactics such as camping, farming, hourly vaulting, etc. With regards to the subsequent suggestion of "right of retaliation", despite the opponent being in retreat - again, a 'smart' player can already do that. (Get a friend to sanction, and attack until dead. Or even better, get a 2nd account to do it for you). If you don't know how to get the link to the 2nd account, again, smart players manage this.

I understand your need for a smarter and more complex way to play, but there are limitations to this game. Aside that, there are some very creative strategies being put together. But I do not see how allowing an "guaranteed attack back feature" can make the game smarter and more complex. If anything it simplifies the game..

And finally, a 90% W/L stat is not mediocre. Congratulations if you happen to have a better one, but there is no way on earth you are going to convince me that 90% is the average out there. (Perhaps you are little upset that Bommando didn't agree with your suggestion and this piqued your pride a little?) :D

[Bommando]

I think H thought I was referring to the singular "you" rather than the collective "you", so may have taken my comment personally.

I agree that it's more than black and white and I think I fit the "play smart" rather than "play hard" category anyway. I haven't been playing very long and haven't bought any HPs, so there are definitely shortcomings in my buildings for example. Not much I can do about that except for buy HPs or sit and camp for two months. Not really my bag.

Attacking people keeps me interested, so that's what I do. It doesn't bother me if it puts me a little under the top earners in my bracket. I'm playing the way I want to play, not for ignorance of what is optimal, but born of a decision to keep time invested low, but remain aggressive in the game.

I'm not concerned if H considers my stats mediocre. His may be better. I never said any different about him specifically.

[Unregistered]

hi, i will not rinse and repeat my reasoning to those who seemingly are grounded in their own views. but i will reiterate the fact that you guys are seemingly stuck in there here and now -- playing the game for what it is now. it sounds like you are concerned with what you have and perhaps are prone to the uncertainties of change.

blownapart, can't resist the temptation to include a personal attack in that otherwise good post? that is too bad because i thought the post was good until you took it down to a personal level. tbh, it may be true that you might come up with nooks and crans with the game now (2nd account etc.) but imo, i don't think storm8 (or any game developers) envisioned the game (or games) to be played by makeshift tactics possible through things that are external to the game mechanics. in the context of the right to retaliation, you might want to think and assess how it may make room for smarter game play as i will accept your sanction technique (i am already doing this). as much as you are inclined to believe that this game is about time, maybe you should be more open minded especially in evaluating other people's suggestions - instead of being so overly defensive? and as you said "there are limitations to this game", that is why people like me give suggestions to open up possibilities and uplift those limitations.

otherwise i will accept bommando's explanation, to which i think he rationalized until later, that "you" was aimed at a general level.

[Unregistered]

I was referring specifically to your "free attack" proposition, which to me defeats the purpose of keeping one's health low to avoid retaliation, which I think is an example of smart and dedicated play.

I made it pretty clear that I'm a casual player in my earlier post. I agree with your notion of smart play, I'm just arguing against changing game dynamics to suit what I perceive as lazy gameplay. If I lose money, it's because I didn't spend it or vault it. If I lose a fight, it's because my defence wasn't up to scratch.

This isn't chest-beating. It's just game dynamics. I'm happy with where I am considering my low time investment and $0 spend.

additionally, i don't see my suggestion would dumb down the game. if, say, the right to retaliation was implemented, it would cause the attacker to think more about who to target (i.e. look at enemies' units to see if he can withstand the retaliation) instead of looking at the game from the perspective of the self (i.e. your own buildings and units). your advantage of having built defences up to scratch wouldn't be affected, because you would defend the retaliation successfully (if you have picked the right targets), no? therefore 'smart and dedicated' is still a factor here if you can arrive to the same conclusion. give it a chance in your thoughts.

-H

[Bommando]

In a way you're right about being selfish. I am defending my current gameplay. I already find searching for targets to be rather tedious. Right now, I simply look at their defence and short list them for farming based on that. I don't pay much heed to their attack, since the only time they're likely to cause me any problems is while I'm asleep. The rest of the time, I'm either in retreat or have no money to cough up anyway.

In short, I guess I'm just as lazy. I've found a system that works for me to keep my time investment low and don't want to have to run around fishing in an already sparse sea for rarer targets.

I like the fact that with only a little time and a little thought, I can still do OK at the game without spending any cash. I think that the free retaliation option would favour campers, who I find generally undesirable. It's all opinion I guess.

However, I have considered buying HPs, not so much to get ahead, but to "donate" some money to Storm 8 for providing me with a game I enjoy playing. I've spent $1 here and $5 there on games that lasted me a couple of hours max. This one keeps me coming back, mostly because of the community behind it and the opportunity to have discussions such as this.

[Blownapart]

blownapart, can't resist the temptation to include a personal attack in that otherwise good post? that is too bad because i thought the post was good until you took it down to a personal level.

Sorry mate - perhaps it's because I am an old fogey and don't know how to use the smilies to correctly impart the tone of what I was saying. Perhaps instead of my :D I should have put a :p or a ;). It was more a of tease rather than a personal attack. I don't like personal attacks and generally these only escape when I have an idiot opposite, which this isn't the case. However, whilst we are on personal digs, I thought mine was a lot less offensive than your "I've-seen-your-stats-and-they-could-be-described-as-mediocre". :eek: (Don't use that particular smiley often and am not entirely sure what it means, but I feel like living dangerously..)

as much as you are inclined to believe that this game is about time, maybe you should be more open minded especially in evaluating other people's suggestions - instead of being so overly defensive?

I don't think I was being "overly" defensive. I was simply imparting my thoughts. EVERYTHING in this game, in my humble opinion, boils down to time. Your right to retaliate is just a short cut in time to attack someone who has attacked you. I simply do not see how this furthers gameplay. You can already attack back an attacker. If he is in retreat, get him back in an hour. If he is still in retreat, get him back in 2 hrs. Until you have managed to attack him. If you cannot wait, sanction him. Notice how the options above involve notions of time. The ONLY thing your suggestion gives you that we do not have now, is the opportunity to add a death to someone personally, the moment you wish. As you can already add an death by sanctioning when you wish, I do not see why your suggestion will make people look harder for suitable targets.

Now if your suggestion regarding "right to retaliation" involved being allowed to attack well below the 75% rule if someone of that level attacked you, then I feel your suggestion would have merit. However, simply short-cutting a sanction, or a later attack, adds nothing to gameplay, in my view..