My new theory on explosives

[murf]

I've always been a proponent of attack explosives because you can choose who to attack, but now I'm having second thoughts. I just went over the $1mm/hr income mark and decided to start loading up on Sarin Gas explosives (30A for $325k), to be able to attack a wider range of opponents to make completing TL goals easier. So my profile attack is 56,347 and without explosives it's 44,629. I've bought about 200 Sarin Gas over the last few days which has added about 5k to my attack. However, I still lose explosives in attacks against people in the 34k-36k defense range. I also have 272 skill pts in attack thanks to the Black Widow. So here's my theory (apologies if it's already been stated before).

Explosives are used in the calculation (with all the other known/unknown fixed/random variables) as to whether you win the fight or not. However, whether you lose any explosives during the fight depends on your attack/defense minus the explosives. For example, if I had my 44k attack against a 36k defense, I may occasionally lose a fight here and there, but now with explosives, I don't lose the fight, I instead lose some explosives.

While I guess this makes sense to me, as I write it, this was not my understanding when I decided to spend $80,000,000+ on attack explosives. I was under the impression that a 56k attacking a 36k would win 10-0 no damage done end of story, and this doesn't seem to be case in my experience.

So, my new conclusion is that while adding attack explosives makes it more probably that you will win against a certain level of opponent, it substitutes the lose of the fight with lose of explosives instead. So, depending on how much you value a loss vs in-game money, it's not clear to me whether attack explosives are worth it or not any longer.

[Dravak]

Tell that to the MW and KA players .... and wait they have nothing to game with !

Honestly what use is money in the end , when it is a gold game .

[Swingle007]

Just have to hit buildings that pay enough that you still come out ahead even when you lose a sarin and a napalm during the attack. I know how hard that is to accomplish, and because of that I stopped buying the sarin and just took the smaller gains from the cheaper napalm/anthrax combo. Couple hundred of each of those in your inventory is obviously more cost effective, and still makes you more formidable. If you lose one of each while robbing a lvl 2 office building then so be it as you still come out ahead. I bought a couple hundred sarins last month and had the same results that you are seeing now. Best not to buy those until you have a serious economy to help replenish them.

[dudeman]

I have found that more skill points reduces explosives consumption. I haven't taken detailed notes or recorded any statistics, but I have observed this enough and over a long enough time that I've at least convinced myself that skill points have some sort of relation to explosives consumption.

Attack explosives combined with enough attack skill reduces (does not eliminate) explosive consumption when fighting a rival who has not added enough skill points to defense. The reason a rival's defense skill point allocation is important is because 1 attack skill = 1 defense skill.

I am perfectly fine with being wrong in the above statement, but my own observations lead me to believe that at least some of that is true. If not then I would love for someone to prove me wrong, it's the only way I will learn or believe otherwise.

[Nudie]

I also loaded up on attack explosives to bolster my attack score. Got tired of constantly replenishing them and after a while just stopped buying any explosives. Not much impact to the game I play except targeting players who are slightly weaker than before. Plenty of weaker players to be found.

[murf]

I have found that more skill points reduces explosives consumption. I haven't taken detailed notes or recorded any statistics, but I have observed this enough and over a long enough time that I've at least convinced myself that skill points have some sort of relation to explosives consumption.

Attack explosives combined with enough attack skill reduces (does not eliminate) explosive consumption when fighting a rival who has not added enough skill points to defense. The reason a rival's defense skill point allocation is important is because 1 attack skill = 1 defense skill.

I am perfectly fine with being wrong in the above statement, but my own observations lead me to believe that at least some of that is true. If not then I would love for someone to prove me wrong, it's the only way I will learn or believe otherwise.

It sounds as reasonable as any other theory out there, but I have 272 attack skill pts (I don't think anyone has this many defensive skill pts) and 11k+ in explosives attack points, so I would think I am in the 99+% and still lose explosives to 20k less defense (or 62% of my attack)

[murf]

Just have to hit buildings that pay enough that you still come out ahead even when you lose a sarin and a napalm during the attack. I know how hard that is to accomplish, and because of that I stopped buying the sarin and just took the smaller gains from the cheaper napalm/anthrax combo. Couple hundred of each of those in your inventory is obviously more cost effective, and still makes you more formidable. If you lose one of each while robbing a lvl 2 office building then so be it as you still come out ahead. I bought a couple hundred sarins last month and had the same results that you are seeing now. Best not to buy those until you have a serious economy to help replenish them.

I'm debating now, either going this route, or Nudie's route and just letting my current inventory just run it's course...

[dudeman]

It sounds as reasonable as any other theory out there, but I have 272 attack skill pts (I don't think anyone has this many defensive skill pts) and 11k+ in explosives attack points, so I would think I am in the 99+% and still lose explosives to 20k less defense (or 62% of my attack)

You might be surprised with the defense skills of some players. Just different play styles I guess. Personally, I have 100 in defense, and 367 in attack. I still lose explosives to some players with 40k defense (to my 62k attack), yet I can attack some players who have nearly 50k defense and not lose a single explosive. The only way I can make sense of that is by taking attack and defense skills into consideration.

[murf]

You might be surprised with the defense skills of some players. Just different play styles I guess. Personally, I have 100 in defense, and 367 in attack. I still lose explosives to some players with 40k defense (to my 62k attack), yet I can attack some players who have nearly 50k defense and not lose a single explosive. The only way I can make sense of that is by taking attack and defense skills into consideration.

OK...fair...I tend to target attacks against players with 70% or less defense then I have, so I don't have much experience with players with higher defense then my non-explosive attack score....that is very interesting...

Also, I was assuming nobody has that many defense skills pts because I don't think there has been a +100 defense skill pt weapon yet.

[dudeman]

There haven't been any +100 defense bonuses. My 100 defense skills were earned the old fashioned way.

I have also seen some players claiming to have invested more than double that into defense. Considering I have 100 defense skill, I choose to believe those claims.

[Bala82]

I just opened up Anthrax Grenade last week it seem great attack explosive but i notice better attack expolsive coming up later so should i still buy Anthrax Grenade or wait for Napalm

[_dan_]

land mine is defensive explosive 0/25. You meant Napalm 18/0 or Sarin Gas Grenade 30/0 ?

[Bala82]

Thanks sorry i meant Napalm

I want increase my attack since it's quite low and best way is to buy explosive.

My attack is 6K but Defence 10K. I want to increase my Attack 8K.

[_dan_]

Napalm is ok, if you go with consumable explosives you should mix strong & weak explosives, in case you have to lose an explosive, the chance for weak one is higher, so you still keep the strong one.

[Bala82]

Napalm is ok, if you go with consumable explosives you should mix strong & weak explosives, in case you have to lose an explosive, the chance for weak one is higher, so you still keep the strong one.

I understand this but if you buy higher attack explosive don't they get consumed first instead of the weaker one?