Ruined my favorite event (Street Assault)

[Evan1000]

Streaks were always +4% mafia attack, now it's two.

Syn goals prize was always an awesome mod, now it's building defense

Thanks GREE

[aarondavidsdad]

The mod is a thing of awful.

[spiderman]

Streaks were always +4% mafia attack, now it's two.

Syn goals prize was always an awesome mod, now it's building defense

Thanks GREE

Awesome. Happy gaming, mate.

[Oh_TheHorror]

I'm fine with the building defense. The banking mods were starting to get old. I'd prefer something else, but I can live with it. Now, the mafia mod reduction is sh**ty. A 2% mod is an insult.

[Dipstik]

Streaks were always +4% mafia attack, now it's two.

Syn goals prize was always an awesome mod, now it's building defense

Thanks GREE

Prizes should be commensurate with the effort needed to achieve them. I assume Gree figured out that everyone finishes all of the syn goals in the first 24 hours. I'm kind of surprised they haven't required the sweep goal to be in consecutive fights yet.

[xRedfoxx]

I like the new prizes. Glad they change it up from time to time. Folks that don't like the prizes should just skip the event. Not worth playing 2 days straight for something you don't want.

[Winnson]

The good news is ATT and DEF don‘t matter anymore anyway.

[Evan1000]

Prizes should be commensurate with the effort needed to achieve them. I assume Gree figured out that everyone finishes all of the syn goals in the first 24 hours. I'm kind of surprised they haven't required the sweep goal to be in consecutive fights yet.

Agreed, lol, but they didn't replace it with some worthwhile goals so now it really is a pointless event

[Evan1000]

I'm fine with the building defense. The banking mods were starting to get old. I'd prefer something else, but I can live with it. Now, the mafia mod reduction is sh**ty. A 2% mod is an insult.

Not to me, I have -76% off the bank fee and I don't even notice lost cash when I bank

[sister morphine]

The good news is ATT and DEF don‘t matter anymore anyway.

I think they do, more than during last war


I'd have expected to not win against this guy before (he tried and failed to rob me, lol)

Oops! Forgot to remove his name.

[CC Don]

I think they do, more than during last war


I'd have expected to not win against this guy before (he tried and failed to rob me, lol)

Oops! Forgot to remove his name.

I don't think anything has changed. 249 vs 568 accomplices just isn't that big of a difference compared to lets say 50 vs 200 accomplices.

[sister morphine]

I don't think anything has changed. 249 vs 568 accomplices just isn't that big of a difference compared to lets say 50 vs 200 accomplices.

I was thinking about stats. A x3 advantage in stats might not have been enough to overturn those deficits in accomplices. X4 yes, x3 no.

[ccplayer04]

You got 16 points from the 2 accomplice categories, so you just need 35 points from the total mafia stats category to be able to win against BigDog. Assuming your attack is 2x your defense, same assumption for BigDog, you would get 35 points from that category.

[CC Don]

I was thinking about stats.

Me too. Point being, stats matter as much as they did last war.

A x3 advantage in stats might not have been enough to overturn those deficits in accomplices. X4 yes, x3 no.

This has nothing to do with a change in the weighting of stats. It has to do with you reducing the relative difference in accomplices and thereby getting more points than before

[sister morphine]

You got 16 points from the 2 accomplice categories, so you just need 35 points from the total mafia stats category to be able to win against BigDog. Assuming your attack is 2x your defense, same assumption for BigDog, you would get 35 points from that category.

I have absolutely no idea how you come up with those figures; care to explain?

&dra's explanation of how things work is at http://forums.gree.net/showthread.ph...=1#post1438732. I see nothing in that supporting what you say. Defender's attack vs attacker's defence is only an important factor when attacker's attack is closer to defender's defence.

A lot of people have also asked more about the relative importance of attacker attack versus defender defense versus defender attack versus attacker defense. The answer is that they are not a fixed percentage of each segment of the calculation. The bigger the discrepancy between attacker attack and defender defense the less the defender attack and attacker defense matters. In other words, if I attack you and my attack blows away your defense, then your attack and my defense will be largely irrelevant. On the other hand, if my attack is exactly evenly matched with your defense, then your attack versus my defense makes up half of that segment’s calculation.

Several people have asked whether we “cap” the win/loss in a given category. The answer is basically that it ranges from “total win” to “total loss”. In other words, let’s say I have 1B mafia attack and you have 1 defense. I will win 100% of the mafia segment.

My point was that before the last war I could not win even with a x3 advantage in stats and defecits in accomplices/kingpin, but could with x4. See first two pictures here. Given that an attacker only needs to get 50% to win (remember one guy from TAW was losing to people's minis last war because he'd obviously neglected accomplices), it's a question of at what point does "Total Win" happen. My suggestion is that has been reduced to give more relative weight to stats even if the headline figures are the same.

Looking at the last two pictures in the link from my earlier post might suggest there is much less prominence given to relative weight in accomplices (for the moment) as simple wins there were enough, with a x2 in stats to get the win.