Search For Author: Grady - Earth Empires Forum

Grady

Member
107

Dec 6th 2013, 3:26:29

None of links at the bottom of forum pages point to anything, just "#".

I'm referring to this line:
Earth empires, 2009-2013 Rules | Privacy Policy | Contact | Blog

Err, I thought this is pretty straightforward..

SOs are activated at exactly the 0th second of every minute, so if someone placed an SO with an offer price higher than your goods/techs while there are fewer than 60 seconds remaining, your stuff will get picked up by the SOs.

No need to rush at all.

Grady

Member
107

Oct 22nd 2013, 0:12:19

Grady

Member
107

Oct 14th 2013, 15:27:31

Grady

Member
107

Oct 13th 2013, 8:14:29

Mr Azure, your results are 100% consistent with expected loss results from last year, so really have nothing to do with this set's changes.

The first 3 defender losses are in fact quite typical, they fall randomly within a narrow range.

The last one is expected because failed hits incur 50% extra military loss for the defender.

Grady

Member
107

Oct 12th 2013, 23:11:34

Originally posted by qzjul:

I'm fairly sure that's *not* how they worked; how they are implemented is how they were in E2025 -- 20% of spies, no maximum.

So it's 20% not 25%? With no caps??

Grady

Member
107

Oct 8th 2013, 0:20:18

Grady

Member
107

Oct 4th 2013, 11:37:57

Xinhuan, you need more tech points :)

Grady

Member
107

Oct 4th 2013, 5:51:23

Would be great if the same can be applied to Spy Attacks and Foreign Aid done/given to other countries.

Grady

Member
107

Oct 4th 2013, 2:53:39

1. GS
Losing 22% tech after 500 GS is awfully painful and makes walling much more difficult. Imagine you had 10m tech points and lose 2.2m of them after each failed run on your country. That is in fact more expensive than having ~28m of your troops killed.

Then you lose cash/oil/food on top of that too AND have your production dropped to 20% for a long time, basically means death when you can't even afford to take turns.

Percentage loss should be adjusted based on resource type (similiar to losses in a SS/PS), instead of applying the same percentage to everything. (err, or just leave tech out of it)

2. BR
Halving CS damage from BR may sound like a lot, but say 400 BRs are done and then walled at the end, losing say 2% CS per hit vs 1% gives the following:
99%^200 = 1.8%
98%^200 = 0.03%
Either way the result would be close to no CS left.

3. Missile (not in the changes, responding to some of the suggestions above)
Failed missiles already kill 1% of SDI, if successful EM is going to kill even more SDI, the damage from failed missiles should be removed.

4. Military Loss
Currently the military losses of high NW hitting low NW is amplified like crazy. Wouldn't it be way too expensive to break somebody when combined with the reduced defender loss from Fast DR Type II? IMO, it would also be much fairer if low NW hitting high NW suffer the same military loss penalty.

Grady

Member
107

Sep 30th 2013, 12:10:11

What if a group of players (from the same clan on another server) have a few countries that Commit Espionage / Bomb Banks to other top 30 players, skipping only those from their own clan?

Wouldn't that give this group a significant advantage? The truly independent countries lose 5~15m NW on average, while players from that clan lose nothing.

Moreover, some of these independent players get annoyed and war over these unprovoked ops, screwing up their race for top 30.

Is this coordination? Well.. perhaps not.

-- Haven't played Primary before, just a casual observation after reading up on past set news. --

Grady

Member
107

Sep 28th 2013, 14:58:04

That is the intended behaviour, see this announcement:

http://forums.earthempires.com/Forum.php?threadid=3446

Grady

Member
107

Sep 25th 2013, 18:29:53

Sam reported a ~400% difference, but military strategy would only account for ~40% difference..

Grady

Member
107

Sep 24th 2013, 2:06:55

Grady

Member
107

Sep 17th 2013, 18:29:54

I did figure it out, but frankly, an image which says "Click here" is usually a scam, especially on a page filled with adverts.

Wasn't intuitive at all.

Grady

Member
107

Sep 16th 2013, 1:24:56

Grady

Member
107

Sep 10th 2013, 8:07:01

Grady

Member
107

Sep 3rd 2013, 17:47:33

IMO, for landgrabbing, the change will:

1a. Make little difference to bottomfeeding cost - the smaller defenders get hit into deep DR daily and are unlikely to have the resources to buy extra oil. Many wouldn't even know how to utilize this defense bonus.

1b. Reduce bottomfeeding risk - oil contributes very little to networth, thus holding a lot of it and turn the defensive oil bonus on will vast improve the bottomfeeder's defensive capacity without hurting the range of target selection.

2. Benefit landtrading - both parties can simply turn off oil defense while they trade, turn it back on after hits are done to give extra defense for warding off top/mid-feeders.

3a. Increase topfeeding cost - higher ranked countries (the one with more acres), value their land very highly, because each hit cost at least hundreds of millions of cash as well as close to a day worth of turns to gain back those acres (through retal or hitting someone else). These high-NW targets don't get hit often, have great production, and are hence expected to leave oil defense dialed up to max at all times.

3b. Possible reduced acre loss from being retaled after topfeeding - Topfeeders, expecting to be retaled, will also have their defense bonus from oil turned on, making it more difficult and expensive to NW-match and retal them for good acres.

For war, this will make KRs more difficult, especially on hitting the winning side - as it will have more resources for buying/stocking the oil.

Grady

Member
107

Sep 2nd 2013, 17:48:55

You can't do 1 unit attacks most of the time anyway because of the "Your army will be slaughtered" rule.

And formula for the cap on def military loss can readily be borrowed for this - defender only lose so much when attacker sends a relatively small force to lemming. In the oil-defense scenario, only the corresponding defense force should cost oil.

Heck, to make it really simple, just do this:
def-oil cost = def military loss * SOME_PERCENTAGE

Edited By: Grady on Sep 2nd 2013, 17:51:46
See Original Post

Grady

Member
107

Aug 29th 2013, 9:49:16

Grady

Member
107

Aug 23rd 2013, 18:09:02

Does "0.05% for AB &etc" cover AB only or something else too?

Did you really mean 0.05%~0.07%? Aren't the rates 0.5%~0.7%?

Grady

Member
107

Aug 19th 2013, 7:48:52

Grady

Member
107

Aug 14th 2013, 8:58:11

Grady

Member
107

Aug 8th 2013, 22:36:25

Thanks qz. I would suggest giving the topics a version number, so we could at least tell which changes come first. Dates are ok but not as easily compared.

Then if the bulk of the update is centered around particular topics, add them to the thread name.

e.g.
Ver3.1 Updates to Attacks and Building Cost

Grady

Member
107

Aug 8th 2013, 12:35:41

I would like to add that the recent announcement topics names are overly generic. Topic names like:

"Changes for upcoming resets"
"Immediate Changes & Rolling Changes"

are pretty meaningless and difficult to be tracked later. Especially when posts are sorted by last reply dates.

Grady

Member
107

Aug 8th 2013, 0:34:28

Latest announcement talks about reverting to old formulas before the "ramping damages" change.

What was it like before the ramping damage change?

Buying up military during walling no longer affect civ losses at all?

Grady

Member
107

Aug 7th 2013, 6:58:45

Testing with Standard Strike and Planned Strike show small countries hitting large countries causes defender loss that is much higher than before these changes. Only a couple of hits were done, highest defender military damage seen so far is 18% while the smaller attacker lost exactly 8%.

Grady

Member
107

Aug 7th 2013, 1:22:38

A 1m country attacking a 12m country can wipe out ~18% of the 12m country's defense in a single hit, as opposed to fall within 4~8% before the change.

Is the 18% damage a bug or intended?

Grady

Member
107

Aug 6th 2013, 5:28:40

Originally posted by qzjul:

1b) Military Damage
Military damage will have a multiplier added which will adjust damage based on square root of networthA/networthB; the larger opponent will have the multiplier applied to their losses; this means for a target half your size, you will lose 40% more; for 10x, about 3x more

Does this apply to all attacks? So if you are close to 12 times larger than a target, landgrabbing him will make you lose 8%*sqrt(12)=27.7% of the jets sent? Do off. allies also lose >27% of their jets sent helping (~=27.7%*25%=6.9%)?

Grady

Member
107

Aug 3rd 2013, 22:14:41

Grady

Member
107

Jul 22nd 2013, 8:07:37

Grady

Member
107

Jul 15th 2013, 3:12:42

Grady

Member
107

Jul 8th 2013, 7:29:18

Grady

Member
107

Jul 5th 2013, 15:05:52

I heard that in Primary, tech stealing by countries you have never touched is really bad, even when you have joined GDI?

Grady

Member
107

Jul 1st 2013, 6:55:09

Grady

Member
107

Jun 26th 2013, 4:41:14

I came across this post when reading up on Minecraft, and noticed the author's name:

http://www.minecraftforum.net/...06-nether-portal-science/

Is that you?! Great read :)

Grady

Member
107

Jun 24th 2013, 5:29:17

Grady

Member
107

Jun 18th 2013, 4:24:13

Grady

Member
107

Jun 10th 2013, 23:35:40

Grady

Member
107

Jun 5th 2013, 1:32:01

galleri:

News between imagNum and Monsters this set:
http://earthgraphs.com/...ime_to=&donews=Search

Time Attacker Defender Type Result
2013-06-03 07:57 Mr Snow (#668) (MONSTERS) ScodeGetsNoInternetInMordor (#1244) (iMagNum) PS 583A (+1,021A)
2013-06-01 06:26 Sodawater (#1400) (MONSTERS) 65 (#1235) (iMagNum) PS 757A (+633A)
2013-05-30 01:18 65 (#1235) (iMagNum) Mr Fleur de Lis (#310) (MONSTERS) PS 2,137A (+1,154A)

Monsters have made 0 hit on imagNum until it was topfed by your #1235.

In fact, imagNum grabbed 2137 acres from Monsters, while Monsters only retaled and grabbed for 1340 acres.

Our member also received the following message after said topfeed:

Message from 65 (#1235) sent on Jun 02, 1:48
let whomever thinks I will accept any thing other than 1:1 retals , to be prepared to defend themselves. thank you

And as you have just realized, you are not an all-X:

Originally posted by galleri:

I have been all x'ing since the CF with MD.

http://earthgraphs.com/...ime_to=&donews=Search

Time Attacker Defender Type Result
2013-05-20 06:28 ScodeGetsNoInternetInMordor (#1244) (iMagNum) TooTrue (#1270) PS 434A (+128A)
2013-05-16 03:39 ScodeGetsNoInternetInMordor (#1244) (iMagNum) The Mad King (#1253) (xMDx) SS 335A (+52A)
2013-05-16 03:38 ScodeGetsNoInternetInMordor (#1244) (iMagNum) The Mad King (#1253) (xMDx) SS 344A (+84A)

Grady

Member
107

Jun 1st 2013, 8:52:14

Originally posted by hawkeyee:

0.001% is 1 in 100,000
so 0.0064% is 64 in 100,000 or 1 in 1562 turns? Is that right?

I've played 3519 turns so far this set. Obviously I haven't had 4% tech from the start.. but according to my admittedly poor math a techer or someone who maintains 4% warfare from the very beginning should expect to see 3 missiles on average 2 or 3 times a set?

0.0064% is 6.4 in 100,000 (or 64 in 1,000,000)
not 64 in 100,000

Grady

Member
107

May 31st 2013, 17:57:16

Originally posted by Flamey:

The topfeed after the war was a jerk move. Yet, looking back at #7's grabs over the reset, there is so much of what we'd consider 'abusive landtrading' that I'm not losing sleep over it.

Here are some examples of the "non-abusive" landgrabs:
http://earthgraphs.com/...ime_to=&donews=Search

Time Attacker Defender Type Result
2013-05-31 04:02 sof op nerf sof plz (#332) (SoF) OATS CATS ARE SUPER CATS (#1073) (SoF) PS 610A (+62A)
2013-05-31 04:02 sof op nerf sof plz (#332) (SoF) OATS CATS ARE SUPER CATS (#1073) (SoF) PS 767A (+189A)
2013-05-31 04:02 sof op nerf sof plz (#332) (SoF) OATS CATS ARE SUPER CATS (#1073) (SoF) PS 780A (+284A)
2013-05-31 04:02 sof op nerf sof plz (#332) (SoF) OATS CATS ARE SUPER CATS (#1073) (SoF) PS 757A (+474A)
2013-05-30 03:45 sof op nerf sof plz (#332) (SoF) OATS CATS ARE SUPER CATS (#1073) (SoF) PS 965A (+293A)
2013-05-30 03:45 sof op nerf sof plz (#332) (SoF) OATS CATS ARE SUPER CATS (#1073) (SoF) PS 1,289A (+643A)
2013-05-30 03:45 sof op nerf sof plz (#332) (SoF) OATS CATS ARE SUPER CATS (#1073) (SoF) PS 1,429A (+891A)
2013-05-30 03:45 sof op nerf sof plz (#332) (SoF) OATS CATS ARE SUPER CATS (#1073) (SoF) PS 1,655A (+996A)
2013-05-27 03:55 Baby Noah FTW (#131) (SoF) HAN (#81) (SoF) PS 733A (+78A)
2013-05-27 03:54 Baby Noah FTW (#131) (SoF) HAN (#81) (SoF) PS 719A (+188A)
2013-05-27 03:54 Name it Zergling One (#211) (SoF) HAN (#81) (SoF) PS 798A (+620A)
2013-05-27 03:54 Baby Noah FTW (#131) (SoF) HAN (#81) (SoF) PS 1,104A (+748A)
2013-05-27 03:53 Baby Noah FTW (#131) (SoF) HAN (#81) (SoF) PS 1,390A (+1,235A)
2013-05-27 03:52 www norml org (#1171) (SoF) HAN (#81) (SoF) PS 1,544A (+646A)
2013-05-27 03:51 www norml org (#1171) (SoF) HAN (#81) (SoF) PS 1,624A (+680A)
2013-05-20 14:26 fluff HeaDs (#601) (SoF) m0m0 name it wait for it (#289) (SoF) PS 1,165A (+738A)
2013-05-19 12:59 fluff HeaDs (#601) (SoF) m0m0 name it wait for it (#289) (SoF) PS 2,141A (+998A)
2013-05-18 03:14 name him m0m0 (#38) (SoF) m0m0 name it wait for it (#289) (SoF) PS 277A (+0A)
2013-05-18 03:14 name him m0m0 (#38) (SoF) m0m0 name it wait for it (#289) (SoF) SS 435A (+0A)
2013-05-18 03:13 name him m0m0 (#38) (SoF) m0m0 name it wait for it (#289) (SoF) SS 439A (+28A)
2013-05-18 03:13 name him m0m0 (#38) (SoF) m0m0 name it wait for it (#289) (SoF) SS 636A (+93A)
2013-05-18 03:13 name him m0m0 (#38) (SoF) m0m0 name it wait for it (#289) (SoF) SS 644A (+136A)
2013-05-18 03:13 name him m0m0 (#38) (SoF) m0m0 name it wait for it (#289) (SoF) SS 1,048A (+353A)
2013-05-18 03:13 Name it Zergling One (#211) (SoF) m0m0 name it wait for it (#289) (SoF) PS 1,625A (+519A)
2013-05-18 03:13 Name it Zergling One (#211) (SoF) m0m0 name it wait for it (#289) (SoF) PS 2,483A (+1,213A)
2013-05-18 03:13 Name it Zergling One (#211) (SoF) m0m0 name it wait for it (#289) (SoF) PS 3,190A (+1,792A)
2013-05-18 03:12 Name it Zergling One (#211) (SoF) m0m0 name it wait for it (#289) (SoF) PS 3,869A (+2,164A)

Total Land Internally Farmed
Name Clan Grabbed
1 Name it Zergling One (#211) SoF 11,965a
2 GO CANUCKS GO (#1014) 11,215a
3 sof op nerf sof plz (#332) SoF 8,252a
4 Baby Noah FTW (#131) SoF 3,946a
5 communicasher (#59) EVOosso 3,770a
6 name him m0m0 (#38) SoF 3,479a
7 100ll0000l (#423) Infernal 3,378a
8 fluff HeaDs (#601) SoF 3,306a
9 www norml org (#1171) SoF 3,168a
10 donde este y gordos (#936) LaF 2,803a

Grady

Member
107

May 31st 2013, 15:15:45

Boltar, you dropped land after your hit.