Combat Balance Changes (Oct-27)


In response to player feedback (especially the Ship Loss Ratio thread), combat has been adjusted so that recovery is swifter and we can all enjoy battling more often! Details:

  • The minimum percentage of troops lost which will be revivable (for both the attacker & defender) has been raised from 10.9% to 66.667%.
  • The cost to revive troops now costs 57% fewer peasants than before. Specifically, it has been decreased from 46.6% of a new troop’s cost to 20% of the cost of training a new troop.
  • The cap on how many troops you can have pending revive has been raised. The base amount has been increased from 10k to 24k. The per-level increase has been increased by 25%. (Level 200 can now hold up to 64k troops needing a revive instead of just 40k in the past.) We’re going to show the cap in the UI in the future.
  • Glory payouts have been reduced by 80% (however since so many more ships can be revived now, the total resource cost to get 1 glory is unchanged overall).
  • Bonus: The 3rd Primarch slot cost has been dropped to 30.8 million gold (same dollar value as it was originally; gold got more expensive a few updates ago but the Primarch slot cost wasn’t changed)

Ship loss ratio
Rider xp and Primarch xp issue
Kill event in atlas
Kill event in atlas


Ok so a slightly dumb question:

Battle happens
Attacker: 5 flames 100 percent; max glory potential almost

Attacker loses 2000, defender loses 20000; 1:10
Attacker revives 66.6 percent so has a net loss of
667 soldiers.

Defender loses 20 000 but revives 99% so has netbloss of 200 soldiers.

Attacker loses 4000 troops defender loses 10000.
Revive for attacker is 66 percent, So 1320 troops permanently lost.

Defender lost 10000 troops, so revives 98 percent;
So defender loses 200 troops?


You might argue that the cost in gold is more, but gold = easy to get.

Am I missing something?

(ps.both number scenarios are real in game numbers for previous attacks)


Ive had plenty of battles today and don’t think the update is having the intended affect.

Essentially someone can hit you over and over, and as long as they suck, they will come out ahead of you.

They gain more G points, and just revive everything and come right back. It costs hammers to defend, and a highly successful defense where I lose 1.5k troops and attacker 15k troops, netted me 700 g points.

I think the calculation on G points gained should be on the troops they lose, not the troops I lose.

In other words, if he attacks poorly, and loses 15k troops, he cannot get the full troop amount back and full g points. That makes no sense. He gets rewarded for sucking.


I agree with this. If I recall correctly, the better you did attacking/defending pre-3.70, the more you got to repair/revive. It aligned incentives properly.

It sounds like I should tell my teammates not to defend beta attacks as an optimal tactic. That is an odd incentive imo.


I think these all help on a micro scale and maybe enough micro changes will matter. The thing I see on a macro scale. There is very little incentive for higher ranked teams to have to fight each other. The most efficient/effective route is to simply go crush a smaller one. With no incentive no to…this still does not seem like a sustainable model. The goal should be to move up I would think, not simply find someone weaker?


My issue at the moment is if 50 weak teams attacked say Dread
And sucked horribly dying like flies. They would beat you eventually just cause of numbers

This is exactly what we campaigned against a few patches ago. With this current iteration they are losing no troops whatsoever, gaining a lot of g, and can just do it over and over. Where the defending team, winning with 10x margins each time, is slowly losing troops by attrition. Only 100-200 per fight, but multiply that by all the attacks and see what happens.


Pace and balance are definitely still off…but I guess oniy time will tell…


Hmmm @PGDave not sure what the solution is , but spending all day yesterday and today getting repeatedly spam attacked by players with fighter primes suiciding into our base is really NOT fun.

They lose nothing and gain glory, its a 10min resummon yet it costs us as defenders 100s of hammers. Sometimes turns out it was 1 troop only.

Still this is not how it should be. 100s of little nonsense attacks shouldnt be able to cause real damage yet here we are. Surely the mechanism should be punishing teams that kamikaze non stop, not reward them?

I don’t think the revive percentage should be high for attacks that fail dismally. They current 100 percent is way to high. Im not saying it should be zero, but failing hitting the same target 4-5x an hour should punish you. It needs to create a scenario that makes it clear you should go home and come back another day stronger or with a better strat.

Id also like to propose that any attack made with less than a certain amount of troops, eg 150, the outcome should simply be a message saying you were destroyed. No long winded battle, no g, no revives. This will (a) get rid of grief attacks during pvp events sitting on mines etc, and (b) stop players from wasting 100s of hammers on sham attacks.

Currently in beta you cannot see the amount of troops till the player is well and truly stranded on your blockade for a good 30sec. Many players attack before then, so only after the battle is done can you see it it was 1 or 40k troops.


This comparison isn’t quite apples to apples. We need to account for the repair cost – reviving is far from free. Sure, you can grind a lot of gold. But you can’t grind hats (or time). To follow up on your example:

Attacker revives 66.6 percent so has a net loss of 667 soldiers. But we also have to count the new ships that couldn’t be built because of the hat cost of reviving 1333 soldiers * 0.2 = 266. So the total net loss is really 933.

Defender loses 20 000 but revives 99% so has net loss of 200 soldiers. Adding in sailor costs like before: 19800 * 0.2 = 3960. For a total loss of 4,160 soldiers.

So the defender has won by over 3,000 (4:1). That’s a much better outcome now that we’re comparing apples to apples.

I’m open to punishing a poor attacker more … by setting the attacker revive rate to a fix number (66.7% … not going up if the attacker does poorly). In this case, it’d increase the net defender loss to 9,328 (including sailor costs to rebuild) and keep the net loss ratio at 10:1 (same as the initial kill ratio). That seems reasonable … so going to push this live shortly.


Sorry you addressed it :blush:


I’ve updated revive so that the attacker no longer benefits from the glory preservation mechanic. More simply, the attacker is unable to revive more than the minimum reparable percent of 66.7%. This means an attacker which loses 10:1 will come out with 10x more ships lost than the defender even after both sides have revived everything.


That sounds reasonable. This of course is for bad attackers

A good attacker would still do well, as intended


This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.