Catapulting also generate attack points?

  • Cmon, why only killing troops generate attacking points... why not buildings too...


    This has been mentioned before, and in my opinion it would be a much better measure of successful attacks than the number of troops killed. Actually, stats can be quite deceiving. A player who gets 100k attack points one week later in the server is not necessarily such a successful attacker - all it means is that he or she killed 100k defensive units (in crop), but does not openly show that in doing so, a large number of his or her own troops died in the process - essentially destroying the hammer.


    In my eyes, a player who adequately fakes enough targets to confuse the enemy and destroys enough buildings and fields so as to zero a village or render it useless has done far better and been a much more successful attacker even (maybe especially) if not a single defensive unit was killed and no attack points whatsoever were gained.


    Defense points kinda give away which players have lost the most defense troops (as in TK, it is the one who owns the troops who gets the defense points), and so might be less able to mount an independent defense if attacked - especially if attacked during offline hours.


    So stats can be misleading in some ways and revealing in others. However, stats say little about the proficiency of a player.

  • Cmon, why only killing troops generate attacking points... why not buildings too...


    in my opinion it could be cheated easily
    because i can catapulting every inactive villages at my area
    another thing catapulting is so easy if you got the target when he offline
    i can't see the point in success catapulting you will lose 0 cata so why give you attack points ?

    Red John
    Customer Service Representative & Community Manager
    Travian Kingdoms AE

  • "Attack points" are always misinterpreted. Just like all the other stats really. The only thing the attack points mean is the amount of troops killed. It says nothing about how hard it was to get those troops, whether you were in a war or not...Usually heavy raiders are high in the attack points, yet they've never or hardly ever 'attacked' anyone, only raided people who don't fight back.


    The only way to see if somebody or an alliance has been in a difficult war is to see if they got both lots of attack points and defense points in the same week, roughly the same amount for their opponents, while they both drop from the raider ranking entirely. If those 3 things haven't happened, the alliance has not been in an equal war and the players in the alliances haven't had a hard time - and should not be rewarded with something empty like attack points medals or high rankings imo.


    Which begs the question, how do we get a ranking that does capture the essence of rewarding quality warfare? Buildings destroyed could work, as well as villages/cities conquered. But I think it would only work in conjunction with being in an accepted war with someone. Only points gathered from being at (an accepted) war with someone should be counted. Otherwise you would indeed just attack friendly or inactive villages.

  • Maybe true attack points should only be given when attacking an alliance that you have officially declared war on. Then and only then would attack points be generated. I can see some problems with this scenario as well but it is another option to think about. Since they can break down tributes from what is stored in warehouses/cranny then the possibility of separating kills from oasis versus at war with should not be too hard. Although every time you add something new it generates code faster then governments spend taxpayer money.

  • I get where the OP is coming from on this one, but it's open to abuse. It would be particularly easy for a large account to collect massive amounts of building point damage by not just hitting inactives, but also smaller accounts, which does the game no benefit.


    So you either look at the option of only counting kill points between alliances in a state of war, or look at a proper scaling system.


    If the latter, then add in population reduction as well. Scale the population reduction too, so that each point of pop reduction is worth more than a single unit of crop kill. Then take that number, and scale it based on the difference between the attacker's pop versus the defender's pop. If the defender is less than half the pop of the attacker, 0 points, regardless of how many units are killed/pop reduction from catapults occurs.