I agree with the fails with no defense or attack on the planet.
But i dislike the 100% invade.

The max would be 99% Not 100%.

Aswell as this, i would say that to get higher then 90%, You need minimum attack of minimum 10x of the total Planetary defenses, Per 1%

This extreme measure would stop the high ranks taking well defended planets and sort out the undefended planet issue.

Example:

If the planet has 10,000 Defense. You would need 100,000 attack to achieve 91%.
If the planet has 10,000 Defense. You would need 200,000 attack to achieve 92%.
If the planet has 10,000 Defense. You would need 300,000 attack to achieve 93%.
And so on. (Upto 99%)

If the planet has 100 Defense. You would need 1,000 Attack to achieve 91%
If the planet has 100 Defense. You would need 2,000 Attack to achieve 92%
If the planet has 100 Defense. You would need 3,000 Attack to achieve 93%
And so on. (Upto 99%)

This would stop the silly fails on defenseless planets, but also prevent people abusing this system.

~JF~

Nah, then you'd have people posting on here complaining about failing at 99%.

99% success rate means 1 in 100 planets, you would fail. At the most it would be 2 in 10 planets on a rare occasion

This would not warrant enough people to moan and change the system again.

~JF~

Remember folks...

10k users

(Estimated average) 1 invasion a week each.

Over the course of 1 year, that's 520k attempts. Something that happens 1 in every 10k or whatever is GOING to happen... on average, 52 times a year. Whilst having a 99.99% (4 90% fails in a row) chance of success and failing freakin' sucks, it's going to happen. Of course, it may not - that's how the RNG goes - but chances are it'll happen.

i like the idea, it makes more sense.
if you are HOPING your planet doesnt get taken on that 10% chance and youve left it undefended.. TOO FREAKING BAD.
either you defend it, or you get whats coming to you. and that would be: less production. because i can almost guarantee that the thief will be putting defences on it.

There's nothing wrong with the 90% max chance for invasion. Also, please keep in mind there is a distinct difference between probability and chance. The PROBABILITY of failing x 90% invasions in a row approaches 0, but the CHANCE of each individual invasion failing at 90% is ALWAYS going to be 1/10....

Exactly. If you failed once you're just as likely to fail again the next time, so why wouldn't you? You failed before, right?

The only reason 90% fails seem extremely common is because everyone whines about them when they get one so they look like they're everywhere.

Most players get a fail, once a week.

some get twice or more a week.

The moaning is common because the fails are common.

~JF~

Similarly nobody brags about succeeding at a 90% invasion. Reported statistics look more common than unreported statistics. You and "most players" were unlucky on the draw. Try again.