Camping for Battle Points

[manbeast]

This is my strategy.

My goal: to gain battle points and rank while gaining minimal experience.

Facts:
You get more battle points fighting against people w/ higher rank
As time goes on, more of the rivals list will have higher ranks (right now theres only a couple captains at my lvl)

Plan: to camp as long as I can until I can fight and beat people who are majors, generals or spec. ops. This will prob give me like 300 bp every battle, instead of the 140 i get from fighting captains, allowing me to rank up in fewer fights which means less exp. points.

What do yall think? Havent been on the forum in a week so this might be a repost

Btw i think it kinda sucks they didn't give us any BP for past battles. I mean I had 5,000 battles under my belt before BP came out. Therefore they should award me about 500,000 BP. This way, it is fair for the players starting now w/ BP from the beginning. Why should us beta testers get cheated?

[Q Raider]

Do you actually get points fighting against higher ranks?

from what I had worked out it was more closely related to the defnece stats of the opponent however in the last day there appears to have been a change there too so perhaps you are correct.

Might be why I am coming in for additional attention right now:p

Haven't spotted another Captain in my rival list as yet.

[manbeast]

what lvl are you?

and yes you def. get more points attacking higher rank. i'm only a sergeant right now.

attacking a private w. 10k def. gives me like 80 bp

captain w. 10k def gives me 120-140 bp. i think it depends if they are apprentice or higher in captain rank.

[Q Raider]

What level am I......not tellin cause I can see your stats and you kick my a$$ bad...:p

[War Priest]

What level am I......not tellin cause I can see your stats and you kick my a$$ bad...:p

C'mon, you can beat him! :)

[JohnnyR]

lvl 105 here, and have noticed rank plays no part in BP payout (thankfully). Just raided a Sergeant and got 180 BPs, this guy had 1,000 more defence (20,000) than my attack (19,000). Attacked another Sergeant with 13,000 defense, and got 85 BPs.

My strategy right now is to plow right on ahead, brute force with my nose to the grinding wheel. Attacking in runs, fulfilling my valor missions on guys with 1.5 my allies, while collecting the BP payout. I don't recommend this strategy to anyone, and actually recommend avoiding it as I'm stalling in progress in both a/d stats, and income (hard to save up for next lvl 4 OR.... Taking full advantage of the rival list shakeup though, and unfortunately so is everyone else it seems-cannot find jack in the lower ally range to raid from anymore... 40k this week banked in valor is nice though, just dandy for when I unlock some of those nice new units.

[Q Raider]

Currently Level 83 with 109 allies.
Attack is a scratch over 10k.
Defence 11k plus.
Apprentice Captain with just on 200k.

Income is very low at 33k but I went into this with an intentional gameplan of seeing how far you can go working against the logical system of building an economy and then moving forward. Focussed on raiding so probably have a large number of peeved off people behind me at present...

Gotten a fair bit further than I thought I would.

[Dreno33]

Manbeast, IF you are right about the gaining more BP by fighting higher ranks, then that strategy sounds very smart. but ONLY if you are right, it seems others may disagree

[JohnnyR]

Well, the approach is logical, but I just witnessed evidence to the contrary.

Good thing is he can still apply the idea, just replace "rank" with "defense stat."

Now, what I'd like to see figured out is this-is there a "stat difference" variable that gives more BPs to attacks with two evenly matched opponents vs. the lopsided ones? IE-does the difference being close or zero as in 50,000 vs. 50,000 net more than 100,000 vs 50,000 or is it based simply on how high the defense stat is?

Hope that wasn't too convoluted, lol.

[commandNconquer]

you state that as a fact yet you cannot prove that it is true and most of us don't get the same results as you. it would of been cool tho if it worked like that i would of started camping! right now i stop bothering with BPs at first i tried to compete then i realized that it is not worth it with the strategy i am using, i gained 110k BPs while doing 3000+ attacks averaging 40 BPs per attack i gave up attacking as soon as i can and I'm just playing the game as if they would not count because it is seriously out of reach for me.

so my current plan : tear **** up and make as much cash as i can from attacking

[commandNconquer]

@johnnyR it is most likely based on the whole def stats because i tried all i could and at 4200 attack with 110k BPs the maximum i can get is 65 points on an opponent of same forces

while some big free players achieve 150-180 with 40-50k stats versus even or less i believe

[JohnnyR]

Hmmm....sounds as if BP payout is determined on a number of things, possibly:

+ Your rank
+ How evenly matched the opponent is
+ How big stats are overall

[:marine:]

That's why I'm getting 15 to 30 battle ponts every attack.

[Q Raider]

Thought I had that figured out Johny R but they may have fiddled things a bit since.

Did some checks as a Level 78 and a couple of things were apparent.

1. Allies plays no part. Same points for one with 68 allies as one with 139 and almost identical defence stats and buildings.

2. The points received were closely related to the persons overall defence including adding in a percentage for bonus buildings. (Confirmed that by taking out a guys composite factory, points dropped as soon as it was out of play)

3. There is a minimum amount of points awarded per level, for a level 78 this was around 50 for someone with low stats and no defence at all. At level 81 the lowest points I found was 55.

4. Raiding above your attack Vs their defence stat appears to give a bigger bonus but didn't get a chance to do too many of them as they proved a bit costly..:p

5. They are still tinkering....

[Dreno33]

when all of this is confirmed. someone need to create a guide/informative thread on how BP's work and are given. A one-read thread would be very useful (but only once the facts are known)

[manbeast]

hmmm well like i said i havent been on the forum in a week or so. i thought it was a fact but maybe not.

i got every single one of my crates this last event from pvp and i was really paying attention to the BP's. i never got over 100 bps from a private, but every captain i get 120+ so i'm pretty sure rank has something to do with it.

[JohnnyR]

Attacking Captains with puny defense and getting 65-70 BPs here.
Attacked a private with 4k less D to my A and got 99 BPs.

There is probably a combination of factors at work here. I'm going by stat totals for my guide of what will bring me the most. What I'm really shooting for is completing valor goals though, these BPs and unlocking new units is a side benefit for me.

[Corsair]

Pretty sure it is stat totals, like everything else. Manbeast, I've noticed that most higher ranked players also have higher stats. That may be why you are seeing the higher BPs for the higher ranks.

Personally, I think the effort to gain BPs is not worth the gain. Maybe I'll feel different once I add a lot more allies and start getting bigger numbers in battles.

[JMC]

I don't think there is any relation between the rank and amount of Battle Points you earn.
I have not tested it on a private and a higher rank player of the same strength, but what i assume is happening is that the privates just tend to be weaker players. The weaker players who have quit the game, or are just avoiding PvP, or are just too weak to successfully engage in PvP with anyone.

When i look for weak targets on my list now, the first thing i look for is private rank.

So far it's quite obvious that defence plays a role in the amount of battle points earned, and there is a minimum amount of BP that can be earned, which likely depends on level. For the people i'm attacking it's 75 i think.

[azy]

I've tracked stats from fights with 35 different opponents, and the best predictor of BP is combine A+D stats. Level and ally count seem to have a very low correlation factor to BP. With just A+D, you can explain 70% of BP awarded, and that's not taking boost into account.

If someone had the mental fortitude to track BP, Level, Rank, Ally, A, D, Boost and rough inventory composition, I'd be happy to run a multi-linear regression. I reckon that at least 20 data points would be required. Divide and conquer?

[Maverick50727]

Sorry, late to the game as always. Not in the forum as much these days.

Yes, everything I have done shows that the higher the stats, the more BP your get. The people with higher stats will progress faster as they can attack higher people and get more points it seems.

I try to attack people more repeatedly when I find one with a good payout. But I found sometimes it is better not go too high or you lose more. For me I can win 20 in row scoring 140-150 BP. But when get I payouts in the range of 160-180 I get more BP but lose 25-50% of the battles netting much less. 150 X 20 = 3000 but 180 *15 = 2700 - 450 (25% loss) =2250. So if you see yourself losing any battles, best to move on to someone with a little less stats. Soemtimes it is just that they have the edge due to nation bonus, boosts, skill points and/or strong against units.

JMHO

[Arizona]

So far it's quite obvious that defence plays a role in the amount of battle points earned, and there is a minimum amount of BP that can be earned, which likely depends on level. For the people i'm attacking it's 75 i think.
That's not much. I'm Level 60's and most of my targets are private rank. I think I average around 58bp. Not much, so a major component isn't to do with level as some may have suggested, and most likely to do with the difference in attack and defence stats, as most have suggested, and regardless of level number.
Btw JMC, I sent you a PM... looking for free players.

[Arizona]

If someone had the mental fortitude to track BP, Level, Rank, Ally, A, D, Boost and rough inventory composition, I'd be happy to run a multi-linear regression. I reckon that at least 20 data points would be required. Divide and conquer?
A Fourier transform might provide some interesting results, but this might be going too far. After all it's WAR. kill or be killed might be more appropriate (and fun)

[JMC]

Im talking about the minimum payout. Anyone at my levels even if they have 1 defence will still payout 75+ bp

[Ascent]

Does now wanting to level up really matter anymore? With this new rival list, the spread we see above 100 is so huge, makes no difference what level are you...

[Arizona]

Does now wanting to level up really matter anymore? With this new rival list, the spread we see above 100 is so huge, makes no difference what level are you...
Don't know what level you are, but what's the point of attacking people now? The event is over, so from experience, there'll be another event within two-weeks. Attack during events, get the chance to win prizes, or attack now, and JUST gain xp?
I'd wait. Like Iv'e said before, there's no rush. It's not a race, unless you want it to be.

[Ascent]

Well, a couple of reasons I do attacks:

1.) I have all the buildings built and more land than I actually use. So I only have 1 measly upgrade going on every 48+ hours. It gets boring, nothing to do :)

2.) I need valor for my monster MLRS army :D so I was catching up on the missions (halfway there)

3.) Wanted to unlock the Expert Attack Drone as it seems to me the best Attack/Price value among the attainable valor units at the moment.

My question though was not why should I level up, but the opposite: why shouldn't I? I get good valor and battle points, plus rewards for doing the leveling... and yes, during the event it is even better, but even without still seems worthwile.

Before the rival list change there was a benefit of not leveling up. However, now that above 110, we see a huge spread anyway, this benefit no longer applies... so is there any other detriment to leveling up?