We deserve a clue to show who we can/can't beat during battles!

[The Mechanic]

It's really ridiculous that when we battle another syndicate and attack someone we can beat, we get results like 500 points, 300 points, and then a Loss, in 3 consecutive hits on someone with over 30,000 less defense than our attack. While it would be ok if results varied a little bit, but the current spread between 530 points and a loss on consecutive attacks is ridiculous. We end up wasting our gold and our limited free hits on losses to much weaker players.

So, GREE, since the gold buyers here are making some people very very rich, can we have some guidelines so we can have some idea of how the influence points and wins/losses can be at least somewhat more predictable?

Anyone else agree, post it here.

[wa7sh]

Anyone else agree, post it here.
i guess no one agreed.

[Fancy Pants]

What's your definition of a "much weaker player"?

[tfletcher20]

It reminds me of thug life goal when you had to have 100 consecutive wins and i would loose on like 99 to someone with 3k lower stats (b4 stat inflation and low level at that time ) it's aggravating but it's part of crime city. Gtg rob dipstick

[geminiking01]

I wish the battles used stamina instead of health like the pvp battle we had a few weeks ago. I know GREE wouldn't go for it. It would only cost 10 gold to refill stamina. They make a ton from health refills.

[KemoKidd]

I wish the battles used stamina instead of health like the pvp battle we had a few weeks ago. I know GREE wouldn't go for it. It would only cost 10 gold to refill stamina. They make a ton from health refills.

They make WAAAAAY more from a 25 gold refill for 4 hits then 10 gold refill for 50 hits. If you were gree you would do the same.

[The Mechanic]

What's your definition of a "much weaker player"?

Much weaker as in 30,000 or 40,000 difference between my attack and the opponents defense.

[iteachem]

I have lost to 100K lower a few times. Usually win about 10 or so before a loss. Have also beaten a few when scouting i shouldn't have

[Fancy Pants]

Much weaker as in 30,000 or 40,000 difference between my attack and the opponents defense.

Ok well you also need to take into account the intitial stats as well dude. 50k vs 10k isn't the same as 680k vs 640k they both have a difference of 40k but the percentages are way off.

[iteachem]

Ok well you also need to take into account the intitial stats as well dude. 50k vs 10k isn't the same as 680k vs 640k they both have a difference of 40k but the percentages are way off.

agreed.. I am around 560 and I will lose quite a bit if i try anyone over 500. About 480 is the sweet spot for me to rarely loose

[bald zeemer]

So, GREE, since the gold buyers here are making some people very very rich, can we have some guidelines so we can have some idea of how the influence points and wins/losses can be at least somewhat more predictable?

I'm pretty sure all the big gold buyers know this already purely on name recognition.

However, if this doesn't include you, here's some clues you are already given:
a) Level differential will give a big clue as to IP per fight (on average)
b) High level players in top ranked teams probably have very big stats. Low level players in top ranked teams probably have reasonable stats. The general principle applies throughout, adjusting for the teams performance.
c) It has been widely known that in general play there is a random factor on wins/losses for both attacks and robs. The cushion required to guarantee a win is similarly known. If gree were to disseminate this information it would be through this forum - where this information is already disseminated.
d) If you're really worried about a 500 point win turning into a loss, the answer is to award points based on stat differential. Trust me, you, personally, would not benefit from this being the case.

And since we're spinning waries, I've lost a fight to someone with 500k less defense than my attack before. Not only that, I didn't make a thread whining about it.

[Sandukan]

And since we're spinning waries, I've lost a fight to someone with 500k less defense than my attack before. Not only that, I didn't make a thread whining about it.

You didn't?
Let me guess. You bought a billboard displaying a giant finger and placed it across from GREE headquarters?

[Fancy Pants]

Well after you cross well over the 1mill stat threshold then all crime city lawsof physics and mechanics begin to deteriorate so I'm not surprised about that loss lol

[ScratchFace]

No frickin rhyme nor reason, I'm 92k and lost to a 77k. What the hell Gree, stats either mean something or they don't. I'd be pissed if I was shelling out gold and got beat by someone 15k below me.
What's the point if you can't rely on the stats?!

[Fancy Pants]

I'm 92k and lost to a 77k.

Dude that's barely a 15% difference in stats......when you attack another player the percentage difference is what counts not the actual stat difference (which in your case isn't even that big). You either need to get higher stats, attack weaker targets, or except the fact you won't 10-0 somebody when your barely 10k stronger than them.

[ScratchFace]

Dude that's barely a 15% difference in stats......when you attack another player the percentage difference is what counts not the actual stat difference (which in your case isn't even that big). You either need to get higher stats, attack weaker targets, or except the fact you won't 10-0 somebody when your barely 10k stronger than them.
Ummm it's more than 16% difference....not "barely 15%" stop using that new math.

[jmeijer]

Ummm it's more than 16% difference....not "barely 15%" stop using that new math.I thought that the 82% rule was still accurate?

[Fancy Pants]

Ummm it's more than 16% difference....not "barely 15%" stop using that new math.

You should stop using math in general, 16.3043478 is indeed barely over 15 son. You sir seem to be having some trouble in the department of relativity. If you think 1.3% is going to be a deciding factor than you're dimmer than i originally anticipated.

[ScratchFace]

You should stop using math in general, 16.3043478 is indeed barely over 15 son. You sir seem to be having some trouble in the department of relativity. If you think 1.3% is going to be a deciding factor than you're dimmer than i originally anticipated.
Yet you said barely 15% making you a douche and bad at simple math.

[K-Dawg]

Ummm it's more than 16% difference....not "barely 15%" stop using that new math.

Is this kid stupid for a living???

[Fancy Pants]

Yet you said barely 15% making you a douche and bad at simple math.

Ummmm no. Using simple math would mean rounding my final product into a nice even whole number preferably divisible by 10 or 5 (ie. 15) meaning that by rounding my answer off i am indeed GOOD at simple math. You apparently are either bad at interpreting simple math or you don't know what it means.

[ScratchFace]

Is this kid stupid for a living???
I just can't stand people who act like a douche, and if 16.3% doesn't make a difference then that's frickin stupid. Only in Greetopia does a truck weighing 92 tons weigh less than a truck weighing 77 tons...and only in Greetopia are there douches who defend it and attack others for pointing out that it's stupid.

[ScratchFace]

Ummmm no. Using simple math would mean rounding my final product into a nice even whole number preferably divisible by 10 or 5 (ie. 15) meaning that by rounding my answer off i am indeed GOOD at simple math. You apparently are either bad at interpreting simple math or you don't know what it means.
Stop trying to justify your mistake.

[Fancy Pants]

Stop trying to justify your mistake.

Just admit you were wrong (again). :rolleyes:

[K-Dawg]

I just can't stand people who act like a douche, and if 16.3% doesn't make a difference then that's frickin stupid. Only in Greetopia does a truck weighing 92 tons weigh less than a truck weighing 77 tons...and only in Greetopia are there douches who defend it and attack others for pointing out that it's stupid.

Only a neanderthal would try to compare an online application's attack success algorithms and mechanics to one object being "heavier" than the other. I can see why you're having trouble understanding basic logic now. 16.3% does indeed make a difference in your favor but it doesn't mean you will win every single match against that person, it's based on percentage difference and most likely a chance ratio such as a 15% stat difference yields a 85% chance of success and a 15% chance of failure. You obviously hit the 15% chance of failure. It's not based on black and white "you're 3k stronger so you'll win every match" mechanics otherwise defensive wins wouldn't even exist because you'd always lose.

Now hopefully I've gotten this concept through your thick skull.

[ScratchFace]

Only a neanderthal would try to compare an online application's attack success algorithms and mechanics to one object being "heavier" than the other. I can see why you're having trouble understanding basic logic now. 16.3% does indeed make a difference in your favor but it doesn't mean you will win every single match against that person, it's based on percentage difference and most likely a chance ratio such as a 15% stat difference yields a 85% chance of success and a 15% chance of failure. You obviously hit the 15% chance of failure. It's not based on black and white "you're 3k stronger so you'll win every match" mechanics otherwise defensive wins wouldn't even exist because you'd always lose.

Now hopefully I've gotten this concept through your thick skull.
Well hell it is almost like someone could have explained this without being an ass....but then I guess someone has to fill in for dipstick.
Typical of HTC.

[K-Dawg]

Well hell it is almost like someone could have explained this without being an ass....but then I guess someone has to fill in for dipstick.
Typical of HTC.

Sorry I made the poor assumption that you were at mildly competent and could think for yourself. If I had known ahead of time that you had the IQ of a house plant I would've held your hand and explained it step by step in the first place. The world is not kind to the ignorant.....be careful out there.

There's a little bit of smug inside each and every one of us, we just happen to have a hell of a lot more smug than you do :rolleyes:

[BigMoney]

No frickin rhyme nor reason, I'm 92k and lost to a 77k. What the hell Gree, stats either mean something or they don't. I'd be pissed if I was shelling out gold and got beat by someone 15k below me.
What's the point if you can't rely on the stats?!

It's already been pointed out, but 25% isn't even a "safe" margin if you're going to drop a vault on someone. You can lose to someone with over 100k less stats than you no problem (well, you can't, but someone with 500-600k+ could). I've never lost to someone with 30% less defense than my attack, though, so that's the margin I currently use. You should've had a better idea that could have happened by attacking rivals, though.



it's based on percentage difference and most likely a chance ratio such as a 15% stat difference yields a 85% chance of success and a 15% chance of failure. You obviously hit the 15% chance of failure.

This isn't even remotely close to true. I don't know if this was supposed to be a pathological example or what, but it doesn't make sense at all-- by this logic, increasing the stat differential increases the chance at failing an attack. I don't waste tons of attacks on players I might drop fights to, but supposedly your skill points are a factor in the "randomness" element of whether you win or lose.

Edit: in my experience, I'm much more likely than 1 in 8 (~15%, 7W-1L) to lose a fight to someone with 15% less defense than my attack.

[K-Dawg]

This isn't even remotely close to true. I don't know if this was supposed to be a pathological example or what, but it doesn't make sense at all-- by this logic, increasing the stat differential increases the chance at failing an attack. I don't waste tons of attacks on players I might drop fights to, but supposedly your skill points are a factor in the "randomness" element of whether you win or lose.

Actually big money you just interpreted it wrong. Increasing the stat differential actually decreases the the chance of failing an attack. I used the above as a loose hypothetical set up of the system mechanics gree uses to determine a successful attack in order to help scratch conceive the reason why he lost a battle against his target. I didn't bother explaining more than the basics because he obviously was having a hard time understanding so if you'd like to explain in further detail than send him a pm instead trying to post in this thread.

[ScratchFace]

Sorry I made the poor assumption that you were at mildly competent and could think for yourself. If I had known ahead of time that you had the IQ of a house plant I would've held your hand and explained it step by step in the first place. The world is not kind to the ignorant.....be careful out there.

There's a little bit of smug inside each and every one of us, we just happen to have a hell of a lot more smug than you do :rolleyes:
Get back in the kitchen because the answer is " Yes, I do wannt fries with that." I couldn't care less how much time you spend in mommy's basement obsessing over these forums or how much of daddy's money you drop in this game.

[K-Dawg]

Get back in the kitchen because the answer is " Yes, I do wannt fries with that." I couldn't care less how much time you spend in mommy's basement obsessing over these forums or how much of daddy's money you drop in this game.

Yes sir, of course right away. Please forgive me for speaking out of turn.....

[BigMoney]

Actually big money you just interpreted it wrong. Increasing the stat differential actually decreases the the chance of failing an attack. I used the above as a loose hypothetical set up of the system mechanics gree uses to determine a successful attack in order to help scratch conceive the reason why he lost a battle against his target. I didn't bother explaining more than the basics because he obviously was having a hard time understanding so if you'd like to explain in further detail than send him a pm instead trying to post in this thread.

I didn't interpret it 'wrong', I interpreted it literally. I even added the "it's more than 1 in 8" line to clarify that I knew what you probably meant and that it was still wrong. I don't know the exact percentages, or if it's even possible to have exact percentages, but I doubt it. Hence the "is this a pathological example?" line.

[Scarface78]

I believe you are missing something... read the FAQ, it can elucidate some of your questions:

"Why is this player able to attack me and win?

Skill points invested in attack and defense provide a behind-the-scenes bonus to your combat resolution. These benefits cannot be seen by either attacker or defender in an effort to add a bit of chance and mistery to player versus player (PvP) combat."

So, why do you lose a combat with 16,3% higher stats? I don't know, it's not a exact equation, maybe this player have some points into defense, this can't be seen....

[K-Dawg]

I didn't interpret it 'wrong', I interpreted it literally. I even added the "it's more than 1 in 8" line to clarify that I knew what you probably meant and that it was still wrong. I don't know the exact percentages, or if it's even possible to have exact percentages, but I doubt it. Hence the "is this a pathological example?" line.

Fair enough

[MattThomas08]

Useful thread.

[Homer Jay]

Useful thread.

lol :cool:

[$Heisenberg$]

It's really ridiculous that when we battle another syndicate and attack someone we can beat, we get results like 500 points, 300 points, and then a Loss, in 3 consecutive hits on someone with over 30,000 less defense than our attack. While it would be ok if results varied a little bit, but the current spread between 530 points and a loss on consecutive attacks is ridiculous. We end up wasting our gold and our limited free hits on losses to much weaker players.

So, GREE, since the gold buyers here are making some people very very rich, can we have some guidelines so we can have some idea of how the influence points and wins/losses can be at least somewhat more predictable?

Anyone else agree, post it here.

stop whine stupid noob

[tushy]

About what are we talking about?

If I divide the 92k att with the 77k def i come up with ~19% difference in the stats.

But if u think that 92k att is 100% than 77k is ~83% and you come up with ur ~16%

So what now is true?

[BigMoney]

About what are we talking about?

If I divide the 92k att with the 77k def i come up with ~19% difference in the stats.

But if u think that 92k att is 100% than 77k is ~83% and you come up with ur ~16%

So what now is true?

I've never thought too much about this, but I always do the first one. E.g. my attack is 19.4% more than their defense. An okay target, but hardly a sure thing.

[uncelnino]

I won't waste any more of y'all's time squabbling over the difference between 15 and 16.3 percent as it is irrelevant to what i think the original "intent" of the matter was. I will not even try to present the case that simply because someone has significantly higher stats that they will win every time. I know the hidden skills are a factor in this and surely tip the balance in one players favor at times. However, there has also got to be a threshold that can be crossed to "almost" guarantee victory. I don't think the percentage of difference in strength would allow a rottweiler to lose a fight to a squirrel.(bad analogy i know but i hope it makes a point) At a certain point the strength and defense that we have all worked to develop should enter an elite category that rewards the time, money, and energy invested in getting your player to that point. Perhaps this is all a pipe dream and i am wasting all our time. I would lime to know the approximate conversion from an attack skill point into its equivalent raw attack score. Peace fellas and sorry for the long post.

[BigMoney]

I won't waste any more of y'all's time squabbling over the difference between 15 and 16.3 percent as it is irrelevant to what i think the original "intent" of the matter was. I will not even try to present the case that simply because someone has significantly higher stats that they will win every time. I know the hidden skills are a factor in this and surely tip the balance in one players favor at times. However, there has also got to be a threshold that can be crossed to "almost" guarantee victory. I don't think the percentage of difference in strength would allow a rottweiler to lose a fight to a squirrel.(bad analogy i know but i hope it makes a point) At a certain point the strength and defense that we have all worked to develop should enter an elite category that rewards the time, money, and energy invested in getting your player to that point. Perhaps this is all a pipe dream and i am wasting all our time. I would lime to know the approximate conversion from an attack skill point into its equivalent raw attack score. Peace fellas and sorry for the long post.

There is such a threshold. Take 30%. Tell me if you ever lose a fight to someone with 30% less defense than your attack.

Second, I think the skill points are more of a factor in affecting your "luck" these days than anything else. It's something like 1 skill point = 10 points to your stats (atk/def) below level 200, and 15 points to your stats above level 200. At most you're talking about a couple thousand points to your stats, which is pretty much nothing these days with the current stat inflation.

[MattThomas08]

There is such a threshold. Take 30%. Tell me if you ever lose a fight to someone with 30% less defense than your attack.

Second, I think the skill points are more of a factor in affecting your "luck" these days than anything else. It's something like 1 skill point = 10 points to your stats (atk/def) below level 200, and 15 points to your stats above level 200. At most you're talking about a couple thousand points to your stats, which is pretty much nothing these days with the current stat inflation.

BM is right. 30% should be the max. I usually try to find targets at 80% of my attack, but I do lose every so often. Probably 75% would even be safe. I've lost at 78% but not much lower.

[OneHoop]

I believe that you need a 36% advantage for 100% win rate, but sometimes that is not even enough because of the way explosives are factored in. I have lost with a 37% advantage before.