Atk & Rob Def Experiment

[Swearengen]

I saved up 66mil for my lvl 2 NC upgrade via no banking. I don't recall how long it took but roughly I have not gotten atk'ed or robbed successfully for something like 6-8 weeks now. So after spending that cash (big for me) I then I plugged all my info into White Frog's Stat calculator and it spit out some numbers like a profile def is roughly 28,500 with a effective rob def of approx 21,000 and atk def of 23,000ish...

So I decided to test it out by atk'ing some folks with set atk numbers to see if they would/could rob or atk me back. I left about 3 million on hand to encourage them.

Results:

12,000 & 15,000 atk opponents were unsuccessful in atk’ing me

But one guy with 17,000 atk successfully atk'ed me 2 out of 5 times

Questions:

Does that sound about right? I was looking to see how accurate the rob and atk def numbers were via the stat calculator. In this case, someone with 5,000 less atk than what the stat calculator predicted beat me 2 out of 5 times. Of course I don’t know how many skill pts he put towards atk…

Just curious if anyone else has tested these predicted rob & atk numbers from the calculator?

[dudeman]

I haven't touched the calculator, but if your attack is 80% of a rival's defense then you can break through regardless of whether you are attacking or robbing them. No, you might not have 100% success, but that's not the point.

This works in reverse too. If you are attacking someone who has defense score that is 80%+ of your attack score, you might lose one or more of the fights. With robberies, if your attack is high than their defense you will almost always win, if not actually win 100% of the attempts.

This is the old 80% rule that many have used for the past 9+ months. I usually pay attention to this rule myself and have very few self inflicted losses.

[Swearengen]

I haven't touched the calculator, but if your attack is 80% of a rival's defense then you can break through regardless of whether you are attacking or robbing them. No, you might not have 100% success, but that's not the point.

This works in reverse too. If you are attacking someone who has defense score that is 80%+ of your attack score, you might lose one or more of the fights. With robberies, if your attack is high than their defense you will almost always win, if not actually win 100% of the attempts.

This is the old 80% rule that many have used for the past 9+ months. I usually pay attention to this rule myself and have very few self inflicted losses.

So if my profile def is aaprx 28,200 then 80% is approx 22,560 which i roughly what the stat calculator comes up with. This guy had 17,000 atk which is about 60.5% of my def - so why did he beat me 2 out of 5 times (atks not robs, which should be harder than a rob)?

[dudeman]

So if my profile def is aaprx 28,200 then 80% is approx 22,560 which i roughly what the stat calculator comes up with. This guy had 17,000 atk which is about 60.5% of my def - so why did he beat me 2 out of 5 times (atks not robs, which should be harder than a rob)?

That's probably where the hidden elements start coming into play. There has also been talk of people hacking skill points, but since they are hidden it's very hard to say if that's the case.

If I read Nicholost's post on no banking correctly, I think he discovered that if your attack is >50% of a rival's true defense you can still break through the odd time, which is why he recommends that non bankers only attack or rob rivals who's attack is 50% or less of their true defense score.

[Swearengen]

Thanks, been awhile since I read that thread...

[PawnXIIX]

Not to derail the post here, but we're saying that if your attack is 80% of the rivals defense then you should be able to break through most of the time. How good are those odds?

A few days ago I lost 1 out of every 5 fights to a guy. My attack was 125% of his defense and I was still losing. Once is an anomaly, twice is a pattern. This happened with 2 different rivals, both I had about 120% attack in relation to their defense. I used 12 stamina to win 10 fights is what I'm saying for the first one. The second guy who i had 118% advantage over I used 11 stamina to win 10 fights.

[Eyelusion]

Don't forget those "invisible" skills also play with your chances

[dudeman]

Not to derail the post here, but we're saying that if your attack is 80% of the rivals defense then you should be able to break through most of the time. How good are those odds?

A few days ago I lost 1 out of every 5 fights to a guy. My attack was 125% of his defense and I was still losing. Once is an anomaly, twice is a pattern. This happened with 2 different rivals, both I had about 120% attack in relation to their defense. I used 12 stamina to win 10 fights is what I'm saying for the first one. The second guy who i had 118% advantage over I used 11 stamina to win 10 fights.

So does that mean the two rivals had defense scores that were 80% and 82% of your attack? I'm not following where you get 120% and 118% from.

If their defense is >80% of your attack, skill points and random factor are enough to cause you to lose the odd fight under the right circumstances. Going 10-1 or 10-2 qualifies as "the odd loss", considering you still won at least 80% of the fights.

[dudeman]

Your attack was 125% of a rival's defense? So you had as an example, 22,500 attack to their 10,000 defense? And still lost?

Sounds like a skill point hacker at that point.

[PawnXIIX]

their defense was 80% and 82% of my attack, yes.

My attack skill points is 76 or so. It just seemed odd that with that advantage that a loss would be such a statistical anomaly that it wouldn't really occur. For this to happen twice while trying to complete a winning streak goal this made me question the theories of the formulas.

I get the 120% because my attack was 1.2x their visible defense. When I lost twice I was like whaaat...


Your attack was 125% of a rival's defense? So you had as an example, 22,500 attack to their 10,000 defense? And still lost?

No you seem to misunderstand the percentages. 22,500 in relation to 10,000 is 225%

[Eyelusion]

I'd hit players with 50% or less defense than my attack, whenever possible, to complete consecutive attack goals. It's too risky to go for those your attack is only 20% better than.

[dudeman]

No you seem to misunderstand the percentages. 22,500 in relation to 10,000 is 225%

Ha, so it is. Oops! Lol.

If a rivals's defense is 80% or more of your attack you still run the chance of taking the odd loss. This chance seems to increase as your level increases unless there is enough skill point differential to make a significant difference.

[PawnXIIX]

I'd hit players with 50% or less defense than my attack, whenever possible, to complete consecutive attack goals. It's too risky to go for those your attack is only 20% better than.

Yeah usually I find players with much lower defense than me. Rarely if ever do I fight players with equivalent attack to mine. At my level if the player has 1000 defense below my attack, which is a 14.28% advantage, I can go 10-0

And yes honest mistake on the percentages. I even had to go back and check my math because I wasn't sure xD