A brief explanation about earning max IP per attack in Syndicate Wars

[BigMoney]

I have kept loose track of my IP payouts in the past 5 wars-- meaning, any time I was home at my laptop, and had a target to dump gold on. Unfortunately, my list wasn't nearly as extensive as I thought was when I had it in a single Notepad file-- it includes 1550 attacks, which obviously I've done quite a bit more than in the past 6 syndicate wars. I also seem to have missed recording a war or two entirely for some reason, and as a result, my data wasn't quite as crystal clear in demonstrating what I thought it'd demonstrate. But I've been sitting on it for a while and figured I might as well get it out now.

Really briefly, by "max IP per attack," I am referring to the IP payout you get when you hit a sufficiently high level target. With +25% IP bonus, which all of my figures are, this is a range of 281-563 IP, with a 422.5 IP average. If your IP bonus is different from +25%, you simply need to divide each of those figures by 1.25, and multiply the result by (1 + your IP bonus).

Eg. if you have +15% IP, a 422.5 IP avg becomes: (422.5 / 1.25) = 338 * (1 + 0.15) = 388.7 IP max avg with +15% IP.


The first and ONLY factor in determining max IP payout is your opponent's level-- more specifically, the key difference is the XP difference.

That is to say that NO, you do NOT get more IP in syndicate wars for attacking stronger targets or players with higher defenses. I'm fairly sure of this, because I had to red/green the only hittable target on a team, a level 215 iteachem back when the Indians were worth a **** (err, I mean a Top 3 team) and we matched them for our last battle as DFA was clinging to Top 25. I didn't record IP payouts for that match (nor IP payouts on targets that I weren't positive would give me max IP), so I don't know the exactly where you can draw the XP difference line for max points, but if it were true that attacking a higher defense target gave more points, this would manifest itself in my overall IP average, which it did not, it stayed a static 420 IP/attack (+25% IP). I have thousands of screenshots, so if needed, I can dig up my overall IP total before and after that Indian match, but hopefully you'll take my word.

This "XP difference" being the only factor that determines when you get max IP for hitting a target explains why you need a much greater level difference at low levels to earn max IP-- because while the difference between level 152 and 153 is about 11.5k XP, that same amount of XP would take you from level 1 to level 30. So killing a player "29 levels above you" is a much bigger deal at higher levels, when a player 29 levels above you has tens of thousands of XP more than you. That is to say, the higher level you are, the smaller the level distance is to reaching "max IP" payouts. Again, I don't have any meaningful data records of this, as when I was level 100 I was attacking level 170+, and as soon as I hit level 200 I was hitting 250s, etc. But I was still hitting max IP less than 30 levels above me when I was level 220, whereas the same is most certainly not true when I was level 100.

Next, I am fairly confident that once you are hitting a sufficiently high level target, the IP payout is uniformly distributed. This means that any single value in the specified range, 281 to 563, is equally likely. All this mumbo-jumbo about "too many people hitting the same target at the same time drops IP payout" is simply superstition. I made a histogram of my IP payouts:

http://i.imgur.com/U3lD4h4.png

Now, that doesn't look very uniformly distributed, but I suspect it is because I have too few data point for bin ranges that narrow. So if I widen the bin range a bit, it looks a bit more uniform:

http://i.imgur.com/F2EDSJA.png

The general point here is that with sufficiently many attacks on a sufficiently high level target, your IP average will approach 422.5 IP, which is the midpoint of such a uniform distribution.


This means that, to earn maximum IP in wars, you need to hit the highest level target you can safely beat. There is an obviously limit to this, as a level 100 player will average the same IP average regardless of whether he's hitting a level 200 or hitting a level 250, as 100 levels is more than a large enough XP difference to earn max points. I regret that I can't pinpoint the exact ranges, but hopefully you see it's understandable why I would only unload gold attacks on targets on players that I knew would payout max IP. In my opinion "safely beat" means someone whose defense is 30% less than your attack.


I made a spreadsheet of my data, which includes my level and attack stat at the time, the opponent's level and defense, as well as their syndicate (initially I figured it might be possible that you'd get more points for attacking better syndicates, so I figured I may as well keep track).

I'm no good at Google Docs, and a large amount of data was cut off in the Doc, but you can download the original file there. The rightmost targets are GoTTi's Revenge (twice), and Goodfellas, and they don't show up in the Google Doc viewer, but they are there if you download the spreadsheet. Any suggestions how to fix the preview, let me know: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8ihxUX6lJNKZUVMdFJROTFta00/edit. Probably easier to download it and open it in Excel to view it properly.

Any questions, let me know.



Summary:

The only factor that affects IP payout is XP difference. Anything else is superstition.
IP payout is uniformly distributed on a given range, depending on the XP difference. This means that, given enough attacks, your IP average per attack will approach whatever the midpoint is on that range. The range is obviously different when attacking someone at your level (e.g. another 250) or attacking someone X levels above you or below you, etc.

[BigMoney]

Also worth noting that I've averaged 420+ IP per attack in every syndicate war so far. I can post more specific details if need be, but this includes when I was as high as level 221. Your IP payout, if you're attacking level 250s, does not diminish until at least after this point.

[Smallestelf]

Fantastic summary Bigmoney

[billythekid123]

This guy seriously needs a life. It's a game and he's making bar graphs and writing multiple paragraphs rofl.

[BigMoney]

This guy seriously needs a life. It's a game and he's making bar graphs and writing multiple paragraphs rofl.

So edgy.

#char

[TMI]

I love you

[TMI]

This guy seriously needs a life. It's a game and he's making bar graphs and writing multiple paragraphs rofl.

I'm curious to know, what do YOU like analyzing? Baseball? Basketball?

[Antheus]

....... C h a p e a u ...... !

[Dklv]

Thank you very much for this information. You truly are an asset to all players in this game and I am very grateful that you are willing to put in the time to do these things and care enough to share with all members.

[Gunflame]

Great read. I appreciate what you put into this.

[Antheus]

This guy seriously needs a life. It's a game and he's making bar graphs and writing multiple paragraphs rofl.

....I guess TOS needs more entries......

[ablankone]

BM - You're a friggin' genius! You've answered one of the big questions here. Off to tell my syndicate now...

[ablankone]

And what do you do that's remotely altruistic or intellectually edifying in your spare time?

When you reach a position in life where you too can afford to enjoy what you enjoy doing and, by dint, enhance the day-to-days of others - then your comments may earn a modicum of respect.

In the meantime though - go back to your colouring books.


This guy seriously needs a life. It's a game and he's making bar graphs and writing multiple paragraphs rofl.

[Dipstik]

BM - You're a friggin' genius! You've answered one of the big questions here. Off to tell my syndicate now...

The funny thing is that I don't think you're being sarcastic. It's a bunch of tldr nonsense attempting to prove what everyone already knew.

[187omni]

Holy crabapples ..... that's a heap load of fancy stuff you got there.

[TMI]

The funny thing is that I don't think you're being sarcastic. It's a bunch of tldr nonsense attempting to prove what everyone already knew.

Not so fast Dippy

[Intrance]

Great post! Thx again BM

[BigMoney]

The funny thing is that I don't think you're being sarcastic. It's a bunch of tldr nonsense attempting to prove what everyone already knew.

You'd think that, but no. I constantly hear people telling me that they get more IP from targets with higher defenses, or that we shouldn't all attack the same person because doing so will pay out less IP. For clarification, any time a team name was not written above a player, it was because they were in the same syndicate as the player to their left. This is also why I included an entry into my Notepad despite not being the most appealing target on the team for three attacks. :rolleyes:

[gem]

thanks, appreciate the effort !

[Mack The Knife]

Much appreciation, mr. Bm. Thanks

[Joe bananas]

Great work biggy. More CC wives tales squashed.

[Laelia]

hats off to you chief...

[hobe]

You have to love all the trolls great work once again big money

[cc thunder]

This guy seriously needs a life. It's a game and he's making bar graphs and writing multiple paragraphs rofl.
not the sharpest butter knife in the drawer, it's funny that he's degrading you for thinking so much about a game yeah he's on the forum here, lol what a douche, as always big money thank you very much this is an excellent point and have been a mystery to me for a long time

[CC Pablo]

This guy seriously needs a life. It's a game and he's making bar graphs and writing multiple paragraphs rofl.

Hahahahahaha, this post made my day! Yeah, I like BigMoney and he usually offers good insight about stuff, but this was definitely a pointless thread in my opinion. I think most of the people knew this, but I guess he made it official. Well, I guess after all, it will be an useful post for people starting the game, which are the people that don't read the forums. But whatever. Thanks for the hard work BigMoney.

[Rebels]

Good stuff BM, I enjoyed this post and having a read. Interesting information IMO.

I like statistics and graphs but spend too much of my time at work doing them so would never find the time or motivation to do this. Well done.

Cheers Jimmy

[Captain Torgue]

or that we shouldn't all attack the same person because doing so will pay out less IP.

haha I used to actually believe that until Rogues told me that it was nothing more than an old wives tale.

[Rebels]

Only one complaint BM you didn't attack ponyville enough ;)

[minion]

amazing job BM... I wonder y gree doesn't pay u.. R do they.. coz u r responsible for making our lives easier on this gm.. n d ip loss to ppl who are attacked by d whole syndicate s just nonsense n highly random....

[Christurbo]

Great post BM so thankyou, unable to open the doc at the moment but are these averages after taking down walls or are there no walls considered in the average?

[BigMoney]

Great post BM so thankyou, unable to open the doc at the moment but are these averages after taking down walls or are there no walls considered in the average?

Yes, the wall is always down if I'm spending gold on a target. In a Top 10/25 syndicate, the wall is down immediately every match, as it is very unwise to hit targets before the wall is down in a top syndicate.

[Fredfreddy]

amazing job BM... I wonder y gree doesn't pay u.. R do they.. coz u r responsible for making our lives easier on this gm.. n d ip loss to ppl who are attacked by d whole syndicate s just nonsense n highly random....

Huh?
You realize the time you "save" shortening 2 letter words to 1 letter is lost tenfold by people having to read your posts multiple times to understand them.

Anyway, @ OP
Thanks BM, the "everyone hitting the same guy gets less IP" thing always sounded very suspicious.

[Gingeasian]

Great job as usual and thank you for the work.
Quick question. What is the optimal xp differential to gain max IP

[BigMoney]

Great job as usual and thank you for the work.
Quick question. What is the optimal xp differential to gain max IP

That I am unfortunately not sure of-- exactly where to draw the line. Finding out exactly where the line is drawn would require me to put a large number of hits into targets a bit closer to my level, which seems a bit silly when I've always had higher level targets available. The only time I'd attack someone who might fall in this range is during a match up with a top syndicate in which I'd use my free hits on the best available target. The only indication on the spreadsheet that I was ever close to missing maximum IP was when I attacked L246 joeyhood on the Indians as a level 220. During the matchup, I had an XP total of about 1.78mil XP. I don't know how much XP you need for L246, but the fact I got a payout of 280 for one attack (outside the typical range of 281-563) suggests that the XP difference might be close to this (L246 XP minus my XP), and might warrant further investigation. I always assumed I'd figure out exactly where the line was drawn when I stopped getting maximum points even while attacking L250s.

[minion]

Huh?
You realize the time you "save" shortening 2 letter words to 1 letter is lost tenfold by people having to read your posts multiple times to understand them.

Anyway, @ OP
Thanks BM, the "everyone hitting the same guy gets less IP" thing always sounded very suspicious.

copy that..

I usually hit people 40 lvls higher than me.. it's funny that I consistently score better ip against players 40-60 lvls higher than me rather than ones 100 lvls higher..dont know why.. :)

[BigMoney]

copy that..

I usually hit people 40 lvls higher than me.. it's funny that I consistently score better ip against players 40-60 lvls higher than me rather than ones 100 lvls higher..dont know why.. :)

Try writing down each payout in a notepad document or something, which you can then quickly cut and paste into an Excel document to check the averages of. The whole point of this topic is that (depending on your level, but assuming both targets are sufficiently high level enough for max IP) their averages will be exactly the same after you land 50+ attacks on each. Any results different than that can be chalked up to variance.

[Fredfreddy]

BM, would you say that if you got 280 IP on an attack that you'd found the "next to top" tier? If folks who think they are attacking the top tier get 280 or less, and the jot down their XP and their opponent's level and post, that would give you/us a decent balkpark as to where the cutoff is.

[minion]

Try writing down each payout in a notepad document or something, which you can then quickly cut and paste into an Excel document to check the averages of. The whole point of this topic is that (depending on your level, but assuming both targets are sufficiently high level enough for max IP) their averages will be exactly the same after you land 50+ attacks on each. Any results different than that can be chalked up to variance.

I'll keep record, come next battle.. will a lvl 250 guy score 560 points against another 250 player if the latter have higher xp.. do u have any stats of ip scored by players of lvl 250 against another lvl 250 player?

[Mscosmo]

Thank you bigmoney! The information is a vital tool for understanding the IP totals for attack! Wonderfully put together! Thanks for taking the time to do it. I also read your input on beating the boss. Again thank you!

[soO_wavVvy]

This guy seriously needs a life. It's a game and he's making bar graphs and writing multiple paragraphs rofl.

what have you contributed to this forum? Gtfo

afterall thats what this forum was made for..

[Dipstik]

what have you contributed to this forum? Gtfo

afterall thats what this forum was made for..

Noobs trolling noobs... Can we set it up so you need at least 10 posts before you're allowed to post?

[soO_wavVvy]

yea i know right dip. dont you just hate trolls

[Dipstik]

I was talking about billythekid123. You're just mad, bro.

[Antheus]

Noobs trolling noobs... Can we set it up so you need at least 10 posts before you're allowed to post?




what have you contributed to this forum? Gtfo

afterall thats what this forum was made for..

[soO_wavVvy]

huh? you quoted me dip
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h42/seaPPPP/obamaumadbro_zpsb6fb8dab.jpg

[Dipstik]

Yes I did. Nothing gets past you ;)

[soO_wavVvy]

:confused: i felt special for a split second

[Butt Futter]

New account wavy?

[BigMoney]

I'll keep record, come next battle.. will a lvl 250 guy score 560 points against another 250 player if the latter have higher xp.. do u have any stats of ip scored by players of lvl 250 against another lvl 250 player?

No, they won't. I'm nowhere near 250, but what I've heard is they average ~350-360 IP/attack on other 250s. Their XP is stat, by the way-- 2,513,853.

They get as much IP per attack as someone attacking someone of their own level.

[ploop]

thanks for writing this bigmoney.

[SilentAssassin]

Allotted skill points also seem to have an influence.
If you could BM, check that out next time around. You will get a higher average from a person that is level 250, with more skill points, or the skill points being distributed in a specific way (attack and defence). IMO after trying it with SAS

This involves teamwork from other syndicates as you never know who has what skill points.

Also if someone at level 250 has all the maps completed (so they have more skill points than another 250)

My average is above yours ;)

[BigMoney]

Allotted skill points also seem to have an influence.
If you could BM, check that out next time around. You will get a higher average from a person that is level 250, with more skill points, or the skill points being distributed in a specific way (attack and defence). IMO after trying it with SAS

This involves teamwork from other syndicates as you never know who has what skill points.

Also if someone at level 250 has all the maps completed (so they have more skill points than another 250)

My average is above yours ;)

I imagine your IP average would be above mine because you likely have the Chinatown Dancing Tiger, which has a modifier of +3% IP-- giving you a total of +28% IP, instead of the +25% IP in the original post.

The only real question mark on my IP averages is why I averaged 443 IP/atk on the Indian's "YouKnowWho" for 194 attacks, which should clearly be a large enough sample size that I should have approached 420 IP/atk average. It would be interesting to see if "skill points" were the reason he paid out more than Goodfella's Big Hurt or Tom, Sunnyvale's westie, Sol Invictus's (TTF) No Play, GoTTi's sPeeDX GoTTi (lol), etc.

Sounds like another superstition to me, but I have no way to check opponent's skill point distribution.

[SilentAssassin]

I imagine your IP average would be above mine because you likely have the Chinatown Dancing Tiger, which has a modifier of +3% IP-- giving you a total of +28% IP, instead of the +25% IP in the original post.

The only real question mark on my IP averages is why I averaged 443 IP/atk on the Indian's "YouKnowWho" for 194 attacks, which should clearly be a large enough sample size that I should have approached 420 IP/atk average. It would be interesting to see if "skill points" were the reason he paid out more than Goodfella's Big Hurt or Tom, Sunnyvale's westie, Sol Invictus's (TTF) No Play, GoTTi's sPeeDX GoTTi (lol), etc.

Sounds like another superstition to me, but I have no way to check opponent's skill point distribution.

There is a way, get some friends together and share profiles, then during wars test it out when u get matched with them. I strongly believe in the skill point theory as I have tested it out on a small scale.

I never believed the switching opponent theory or hitting the same person theory.

Also, when syn wars first started I remember skill point hackers would give off higher IP. Not sure if you were around then or not. It was circulating the forums

BTW when I didn't have the dancing tiger, I still averaged a bit higher than urs

Also note this: wall hits will improve an IP average, because wall hits are not considered attacks, but they still give IP gains.

I generally don't touch the wall as I like to tap tap tap for the whole hour after the wall has been destroyed.

My averages are not influenced by any wall hits

[BigMoney]

There is a way, get some friends together and share profiles, then during wars test it out when u get matched with them. I strongly believe in the skill point theory as I have tested it out on a small scale.

I never believed the switching opponent theory or hitting the same person theory.

Also, when syn wars first started I remember skill point hackers would give off higher IP. Not sure if you were around then or not. It was circulating the forums

BTW when I didn't have the dancing tiger, I still averaged a bit higher than urs

Also note this: wall hits will improve an IP average, because wall hits are not considered attacks, but they still give IP gains.

I generally don't touch the wall as I like to tap tap tap for the whole hour after the wall has been destroyed.

My averages are not influenced by any wall hits

Well I didn't record my attacks, but doesn't iteachem have a stupid number of skill points? I averaged the same points on him as I did everyone else. I rarely ever hit walls either.

[SilentAssassin]

Well I didn't record my attacks, but doesn't iteachem have a stupid number of skill points? I averaged the same points on him as I did everyone else. I rarely ever hit walls either.

It depends where they are allotted, energy and stamina don't count (I don't think)

[chicksdiggit]

To dispel the haters, I appreciate the hard work BM. Great info.

[minion]

No, they won't. I'm nowhere near 250, but what I've heard is they average ~350-360 IP/attack on other 250s. Their XP is stat, by the way-- 2,513,853.

They get as much IP per attack as someone attacking someone of their own level.

BM, doesn't that simply mean that lvl difference is the most determining factor in ip calculation rather than xp.. coz may be xp difference between lvl 10 and lvl 50 may be similar to the one between 249 and 250 . but I certainly believe the former match up will provide way higher avg ip when compared to a 249 lvl beating a 250

[SilentAssassin]

I actually think this is great work, I'm simply adding my opinion to it as well. I won't be able to test it on a large scale. I know BM would be the right guy for the job. I wouldn't have the patience to do it.

[BigMoney]

BM, doesn't that simply mean that lvl difference is the most determining factor in ip calculation rather than xp.. coz may be xp difference between lvl 10 and lvl 50 may be similar to the one between 249 and 250 .

Yes... that's exactly my point. I was already past level 50 or whatever when the syndicate wars started, so I don't have any experience with how many levels above a target they need to be to earn max points-- but it is certainly a much larger number of levels needed at low levels than at high levels. When I was about ~100, I'd hit people at least 170+. That's probably overkill, but I noticed that level difference needed got smaller and smaller as I leveled up.

[minion]

Yes... that's exactly my point. I was already past level 50 or whatever when the syndicate wars started, so I don't have any experience with how many levels above a target they need to be to earn max points-- but it is certainly a much larger number of levels needed at low levels than at high levels. When I was about ~100, I'd hit people at least 170+. That's probably overkill, but I noticed that level difference needed got smaller and smaller as I leveled up.

ok. I get ur point. But cant believe u dont have a mini account..:) .. coz you spend so much time and money on crime city , that I certainly believe u certainly have time for one more account.. That will help standardize this study of yours too.. :)

[CCKallDAY]

Wow, my syndicate always thought about the superstition, lol

[bdub]

Appreciate the time and energy you put into this , but your methods and conclusions are flawed. in order to do what you set out to do, you would need to do it in a much more controlled fashion. in science a n=1 is purely anecdotal. That is the case here. Compounded by the fact that your level has been changing over the coarse of your "study", nothing can be concluded from YOUR data.

[BigMoney]

Appreciate the time and energy you put into this , but your methods and conclusions are flawed. in order to do what you set out to do, you would need to do it in a much more controlled fashion. in science a n=1 is purely anecdotal. That is the case here. Compounded by the fact that your level has been changing over the coarse of your "study", nothing can be concluded from YOUR data.

You're right, we clearly need a large sampling of players to test things we already know. /s

I documented both my level and the opponents level. The fact that my level changed over time means nothing, as one could easily calculate the XP difference between my opponents and me at any point.

I'm not submitting this for peer review in a scientific journal, for Christ sake.

[bald zeemer]

I'd add that BM has on several occasions discussed this matter with me, and I have compared his conclusions to independent datasets, and found no disparity.

In addition, when checking IP scores at equal levels I've been able to do comparative analysis on certain key widespread beliefs (I'm level 250, and have near-complete freedom of target choice). Again, uniform IP at a give XP/level differential has held up in every instance.

[one man gang]

Imagine if big money and tramp stamp got together!!

[Dipstik]

Imagine if big money and tramp stamp got together!!

Have you ever seen them in the same room together?

[BigMoney]

Have you ever seen them in the same room together?

I'm not showing anyone my tramp stamp.

[Drew's Crew]

I'm not showing anyone my tramp stamp.

I wonder what your tramp stamp would be???

[Butt Futter]

Gold bars of course

[Goody23]

This guy seriously needs a life. It's a game and he's making bar graphs and writing multiple paragraphs rofl.

if you dont like it dont reply douche

[Dipstik]

if you dont like it dont reply douche

http://www.fodrizzle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Oh-the-Irony.jpg

[Blue Dragon]

Awesome work Big Money. Thank you for the brake down. My data is in line with yours, looks accurate.

[dispohero]

my data spans my lvl from 181-197 (~500 successful attacks vs lvls 23-242) and is also in-line with yours

[GQNammmer]

BM, I respect what you have done for the CC forums. It requires a lot of time and money to post your walkthroughs and I consider them invaluable. Without any logical reason other than my own observations, i too agree with your theory. I must say though, the information and data you have provided to prove this theory is misleading.

You have proved that attacking players ~30 Levels above your own would net you a better IP average but you have not disproved any of the superstitions floating around. While each superstition is held intrinsically to each individual, one that keeps floating around is the IP avg goes done if more members hit on the same individually within x time. This environment can easily be controlled to gather the necessary data but your current findings are far from this setting.

I do hope you can eventually collaborate with others to disprove these superstitions, but for now you have only proved what I stated earlier.

[BigMoney]

BM, I respect what you have done for the CC forums. It requires a lot of time and money to post your walkthroughs and I consider them invaluable. Without any logical reason other than my own observations, i too agree with your theory. I must say though, the information and data you have provided to prove this theory is misleading.

You have proved that attacking players ~30 Levels above your own would net you a better IP average but you have not disproved any of the superstitions floating around. While each superstition is held intrinsically to each individual, one that keeps floating around is the IP avg goes done if more members hit on the same individually within x time. This environment can easily be controlled to gather the necessary data but your current findings are far from this setting.

I do hope you can eventually collaborate with others to disprove these superstitions, but for now you have only proved what I stated earlier.

The fact that attacking players with a higher defense doesn't net better points should be evident from the data, as there is obviously no correlation between the two. If you want to get super technical, it wouldn't be very difficult to graph out the defense (relative to my attack at the top) vs IP payout, and run an actual statistical test for correlation. It's a bit overkill for something seemingly obvious from the data, averaging larger points sometimes on lower defense targets than the ones I was attack previously, etc.

Second, the "everyone attacking the same person lowers points" superstition. I explained this in a PM to someone who asked:


Yes, I did unload on targets that everyone was unloading on, as well as opting for a new target. It's difficult to quantify/distill exactly how people believe that superstition works-- e.g. if you were to believe that if everyone were attacking the same target that one person gets good points and the others don't, then you'd need everyone to be keeping track of their payouts.

In the Excel spreadsheet, if you don't see a team name above the person's name, they are (or were) in the same syndicate as the person to their left. There are a couple instances of this. Right off the bat for Crime City Blades, at some point I switched from L241 yossi to L235 Firstace. In this instance, I switched because Firstace was a safer win (lower def) for me, and 235 was sufficiently high above me. Firstace gave me better points, it seems. The next instance of me switching targets was against Goodfellas, switching from L250 Big Hurt (who everyone was attacking) to L250 Tom, for the exact reason that someone believed the aforementioned superstition. I didn't land many attacks on either of them for some reason (perhaps our syndicate's rank at that point was safe, or something, I can't remember), and perhaps that's too small of a sample to say, but I was landing unusually low points on L250 Tom and stopped attacking, even though everyone was landing shots on Big Hurt and no one was hitting Tom.

The final instance of switching targets was against the Indians, in which I actually switched to a target that everyone was hitting. This is the only real question mark on my spreadsheet, as 443 IP/atk is strangely high, especially over 194 attacks (which is definitely a large enough sample). Most DFA members are already L250 with much bigger attacks than mine, and I believe they were hitting different Indians that were out of my range, so I settled on L246 joey hood, who was the highest level target I could safely hit (that was scouted). At some point, someone said, L250 YouKnowWho has a 770k def, so I switched to him-- as did a lot of other L250s on our team who don't have attacks larger than mine did as well. So I went from being the only one attacking a target to attacking a target everyone was hitting, and I averaged an unusually large number of points. This is the only instance of averaging that many points, and I'm not really sure why it happened. So in that scenario, the reverse of the "superstition" was true.

I know that none of that is completely undeniable proof, but hopefully it's enough to sway your opinion.

[uncelnino]

Thanks for the info