DeletedUser
I suggest an A-N vs O-Z split... for obvious reasons
Then Helen, Miss B, AND Neo would still be together. We need to split them up:laugh:
Then Helen, Miss B, AND Neo would still be together. We need to split them up:laugh:
DeletedUser16970
And you'd be on their team Galen!
DeletedUser17969
That team sounds like it would rule!! *hugs Berkie too*
DeletedUser11353
So now that we lost two forts yesterday, are we suppposed to whine like ya all about it? No, we'll move on, and try to take them back since whining has no point.
Sides seems imbalanced to you? We may have more tanks, but you have a lot more people attending battles + you get more onliners in battles, and your HP is kinda growing lately..
So I would say, not imbalanced at all, my friend.
And after all that complaining about ggs and tanks, I check your profile to see you have a gg..
DeletedUser
You take NOT whining to new levels.... Way to go 
DeletedUser16008
So now that we lost two forts yesterday, are we suppposed to whine like ya all about it? No, we'll move on, and try to take them back since whining has no point.
Sides seems imbalanced to you? We may have more tanks, but you have a lot more people attending battles + you get more onliners in battles, and your HP is kinda growing lately..
So I would say, not imbalanced at all, my friend.
And after all that complaining about ggs and tanks, I check your profile to see you have a gg..
What your actually hinting at is the attackers had an unfair advantage maybe ?
Lets look at the non whine claims you give there Cro as im sure they are accurate shall we ?
Chiricahua Lodge May 1, 11 9:32 PM
Bold City 84
Calumet - GC difference in HP 226k vs 246k offliners for defense 13 offliners for attack 33
Cheeky Diablo Den May 2, 11 4:50 AM
Infraction Junction 52
Diablo Ridge difference in hp 121k vs 139k offliners in defense 28 offliners on attack 27Where is the unbalance on offliners here ? from what that shows in fact the first battle we had near x3 more offliners the second was virtually identical .... the difference in hp were more what youd expect a balanced battle to look like for a change with only a regular hp advantage to the attackers.
As to numbers in a battle once full it is full, numbers are irrelevant, the second example was at stupid oclock for Europe, had 17 more in attack.Every single fort has the ability for attackers to have greater numbers I fail to see any relevance there either. In fact looking at the past 20 battles or so there is virtually nothing in it on numbers attending a battle.
Smalls are atm probably a foregone conclusion. I think thats pretty easy to see and as to the reasons why. Maybe the stacking bonus being scrapped will change that.
My point is if your going to give facts then make them just that rather than claims. Theres a good website for such things id be happy to share the link with you
DeletedUser
I agree with you about the first battle. The attackers just fought a better battle. Though, I don't know if cro was really saying that the attackers had an unfair advantage. I think his point was there are certain people that whine after a loss regardless of whether the battle was balanced or not. Heck some people even whine after winning a battle.
I disagree with you analysis of the second battle, and what you say about the last 20 battles. To me the recent battles show very well how the numbers advantage gives MC a significant advantage. Perhaps the problem is you are looking at the last 20 as all regular battles, when if fact some of those were part of the multis where The Project had the advantage of numbers and won some forts. But, these forts were then returned, since they were won by multis.
If you remove this multis and only look at the last 12 battles here is what you see. 9 out of these 12 battles were attacks by the MC. A lot of the attacks were called as fake fort battles. In those battles only 3 were maxed out. There were 2 MC attacks where they had a numbers advantage beyond what is standard for a maxed battle. 105 vs 80 is an advantage of 25, the closest maxed battle to these numbers is a medium where there is an attack advantage of 16, and extra 9 guys is a significant advantage. 69 vs 52 is and advantage of 17, the closest maxed battle to these numbers is a small where attackers get an 8 man advantage. This is another extra 9 guys, which is even more significant with such low total numbers. So, I don't know how you can dismiss it as irrelevant, unless you are incapable of admitting when you have an advantage.
As for onliners/offliners, it's always misleading to look at offline numbers. It's much more meaningful to look at online numbers. Rarely is a battle filled with onliners, so attackers will usually have more offliners, since they have more people. The fact that these extra people are offline is pretty standard.
Using the offline numbers you posted it means the first battle had 71 online defenders vs 67 online attackers. This sounds pretty balanced to me. The second battle on the other hand had 24 online defenders vs 42 online attackers. This is incredibly imbalanced, and really I'm surprised that you would try to say otherwise.
Agreed, let's just look at the facts and useful facts like 24 vs 42 onliners. Let's not look at facts designed to obscure the truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser11353
Kayak said it all.
DeletedUser16008
lol how can you say theres a significant numbers advantage ? Take only the 20 battles that have been proper ones youll see there isnt much of a difference i in attendees I cant see how you can say there is.
As to the second battle as I said it was at stupid oclock for Europe and the similar is a large where attackers have a 20 man advantage. Given the HP were so close that advantage of an extra 17 onliners with the advantage of towers etc def have I really dont see its such a sway. Theres an advantage there sure but as its one battle is nothing more than a snapshot & dont forget at what time it was, certainly no time for me to be up nor most of Europe. So yes i consider it to be irrelevent
As was the The End of the World Apr 30, 11 7:15 PM -Shadow Walkers- 42 50 Diablo Ridge
50 fighters have attacked the Fort. 42 defenders defended.
50 attackers fell. 0 defenders fell.An obvious bad server day where the bottom 30 for hit rate were attack and the top 30 def... id also consider that battle a one off so again on its own irrelevant.
A 71 vs 67 advantage online in favor of defenders is a pretty big advantage when towers and walls bonus are added for the defense you say its balanced i say its not really taking into account the advantage defenders have already, but hey ho.
Nor is it misleading to look at offline numbers btw its a simple case of deducting them from the total attending to arrive at the online number... Having offliners on attack is far more a problem than having them on def usually, all defense offliners will at some point become useful whereas a good % of attack offline just sit still or suicide/flag rush more often than not.
One off snapshot battles are hardly worth mentioning as an overall picture, what im saying is overall there isnt any attending numbers advantage and usually online players are pretty similar in number. That was the original claim I believe.
As to the second battle as I said it was at stupid oclock for Europe and the similar is a large where attackers have a 20 man advantage. Given the HP were so close that advantage of an extra 17 onliners with the advantage of towers etc def have I really dont see its such a sway. Theres an advantage there sure but as its one battle is nothing more than a snapshot & dont forget at what time it was, certainly no time for me to be up nor most of Europe. So yes i consider it to be irrelevent
As was the The End of the World Apr 30, 11 7:15 PM -Shadow Walkers- 42 50 Diablo Ridge
50 fighters have attacked the Fort. 42 defenders defended.
50 attackers fell. 0 defenders fell.An obvious bad server day where the bottom 30 for hit rate were attack and the top 30 def... id also consider that battle a one off so again on its own irrelevant.
A 71 vs 67 advantage online in favor of defenders is a pretty big advantage when towers and walls bonus are added for the defense you say its balanced i say its not really taking into account the advantage defenders have already, but hey ho.
Nor is it misleading to look at offline numbers btw its a simple case of deducting them from the total attending to arrive at the online number... Having offliners on attack is far more a problem than having them on def usually, all defense offliners will at some point become useful whereas a good % of attack offline just sit still or suicide/flag rush more often than not.
One off snapshot battles are hardly worth mentioning as an overall picture, what im saying is overall there isnt any attending numbers advantage and usually online players are pretty similar in number. That was the original claim I believe.
DeletedUser
By looking at offliners you concluded that online/offline numbers were balanced in the second battle. This clearly wasn't the case as the attackers h a 24 vs 42 advantage in onliners. That's why looking at offliners ins misleading. Sure you can get the numbers of onliners, but you didn't do that. You used the offline numbers to say the defense had a big advantage in the first battle and it was balanced in the second battle. This quite simply is not the case.
Why would you even consider the other advantages that a defense has when looking at online/offline status? In most battles the online players get in, and then the rest of the players are filled with offliners. So, I would expect the number of onliners on both sides to be pretty even in a balanced battle. You would really expect the attackers to usually have significantly more online players?
To find the last 20 proper battles you would have to go back quite a ways, since there are some many multis from both sides, and then counters and most recently fake fort battles from the MC. All we have is a "snapshot". I listed 2 "proper" battles where the battle was not maxed and as a result MC gained a pretty big advantage based on having more numbers. That's 2 battles in the last 4 MC attacks that were not on small forts. I don't this has ever been the case in an attack by the Project (outside of multis).
In fact, I think if you look through the history of battles you will find 1 Project attack on a medium or large fort where the attack was maxed. 1 maxed attack bigger than a small. You really don't see how MC has a numbers advantage and that it plays a significant role in battles? I'm not saying it plays a more significant role than the HP advantage the Project has. But, it certainly plays a role that can't be ignored.
I don't know how the number of online players typically breaks down. I would guess it would usually be pretty balanced. My argument with regard to the online numbers was based on you saying the second battle was balance in online/offline status. You are probably right that that battle was more of an anomaly because of timing and other factors.
The similar battle is a small, not a large. 52 vs 69 is much closer to the numbers for a small battle (42 vs 50). That's more logical comparison rather than 120 vs 140 of a large. If a large fort battle had numbers of 42 vs 50, I'd say the numbers were pretty balanced. I wouldn't say that the defense had a big advantage because they were down only 8 instead of 20. The difference in total numbers only makes sense in relation to the total numbers at the battle.
You don't see 18 more onliners as being a huge advantage in that battle? 42 onliners compared to 24. That's close to double the number of onliners. To say it makes little difference is just absurd and is equivalent of me saying that the hp advantage that people complain about plays no real role in a battle.
One Armed Ninja
Well-Known Member
100 vs 84
Or in onliners..
70 vs 79
Average hp:
2413 vs 2680
13 GG's vs 17 GG's
It seems to me that defenders hadalmost every advantage in this one.
Until...
100 fighters have attacked the Fort. 84 defenders defended.
61 attackers fell. 80 defenders fell.
Where did it all go wrong?
It's nice to see what happens without multis
Or in onliners..
70 vs 79
Average hp:
2413 vs 2680
13 GG's vs 17 GG's
It seems to me that defenders had
Until...
100 fighters have attacked the Fort. 84 defenders defended.
61 attackers fell. 80 defenders fell.
Where did it all go wrong?
It's nice to see what happens without multis
Last edited:
DeletedUser16008
As OAN just pointed out there those numbers speak for themselves & still a healthy hp advantage on average. Roll on the GG sector bonus nerf.
DeletedUser9470
so what are you saying?
you teaching vic how to fort fight?
issues are very clear, you dont need to look into any detail.
it seems though MC is getting there.
eventually MC will get there.
hopefully will soon be a match on smalls as well.
And when that time comes i expect none of you will complain at all, as you all seem to think that lopsided battles are only a problem for underpowered side.
who set the non-cooperative standards?
o yer i remember: "tank up and get a GG"
im just thinking ahead, maybe we could say: "buy more nuggets!"?
DeletedUser16008
Meh Kayak knows exactly what hes talking about & hes one of the best battle leaders on .net imo we are just contesting details with overall view thats all, im being generalistic kayak is pulling details ... at least thats how I see it
DeletedUser
Yeah, I don't think we really differ on a lot. The battle that had 24 vs 42 onliners was very lopsided in online status, but I would say that battle is indicative of what we expect to see from most battles.
MC does have a numbers advantage and The Project struggles to fill the larger battles, so that advantage is not insignificant.
The advantages that defenders used to have are not as valuable anymore, this is true for offliners and onliners. In a lot of battles the attacking offliners end up being of a lot more value than the defending offliners. The stacking GG bonus really ends up turning the advantage in favor of the attackers, once you start getting a lot of GGs in a battle. It seems like we have probably reached that point in w10.
MC does have a numbers advantage and The Project struggles to fill the larger battles, so that advantage is not insignificant.
The advantages that defenders used to have are not as valuable anymore, this is true for offliners and onliners. In a lot of battles the attacking offliners end up being of a lot more value than the defending offliners. The stacking GG bonus really ends up turning the advantage in favor of the attackers, once you start getting a lot of GGs in a battle. It seems like we have probably reached that point in w10.
DeletedUser16008
Oh I agree the GG stacking bonus is reaching that point and i welcome the nerf.
Nor do i say if the numbers do come out ( and its damned hard to achieve with our lot of non fort attendees ) its not irrelevant but it is from what ive seen a rare occurrence.
Project have roughly 600 we about 1000... neither side is getting full battle attendance & both should fill any size fort which is frustrating.
Offliners are always a problem on either side.
We still have an awful time in small battles re the HP & GG disadvantage whereas you are concerned about larger ones re numbers but weve yet to prove it.Mediums can go either way but all in all they usually favor the attack due to the difficulty in the sectors north.
itll be interesting to see what happens when the GG is nerfed but i suspect HP will again come into their own & probably the adven tank will shine even more.
HelenBack
Well-Known Member
No one has posted anything since the 3rd... Seems to me like people are giving up. Why?
I'd like to point out the last few "fuller" fort battles ( I left out Meh because it was an obvious lost cause ):
Hideout May 7, 11 6:19 AM - 28 Rounds - Project won
Infraction Junction 74 [Attackers beaten] 77 Diablo Ridge
H.p. 200.103 (99%) : 196.466 (97%)
77 fighters have attacked the Fort. 74 defenders defended.
77 attackers fell. 26 defenders fell.
Smooth Transaction May 7, 11 10:08 PM - 27 Rounds - Project won
Boot Hill-MC 42 [Defenders beaten] 50 Infraction Junction
H.p. 121.678 (99%) : 142.015 (94%)
50 fighters have attacked the Fort. 42 defenders defended.
15 attackers fell. 42 defenders fell.
Alpe d Huez May 9, 11 2:04 AM - 54 Rounds - Project won
Bold City 95 [Defended the fort] 108 Kimball-Zion crew
H.p. 267.090 (97%) : 263.576 (98%)
108 fighters have attacked the Fort. 95 defenders defended.
98 attackers fell. 68 defenders fell.
Col du Tourmalet May 9, 11 11:43 PM - 26 Rounds - Project won
Bold City 120 [Attackers beaten] 136 Diablo Ridge
H.p. 318.603 (98%) : 317.448 (97%)
136 fighters have attacked the Fort. 120 defenders defended.
136 attackers fell. 40 defenders fell.
So... What does this show? The Project still outweighs us even when we do have the numbers. Even when we have the numbers advantage, we're decimated in 26-28 rounds. Even when we have the numbers advantage, the Project doesn't suffer heavy casualties like we do.
Need further proof? Look at the reports for each of those battles and compare the top defenders/attackers in "Damage Inflicted" as well as "Hit Count" and "Missed Shots".
Whether it be attacking or defending... "The server" favours The Project.
Or do you still think it's balanced?
I'd like to point out the last few "fuller" fort battles ( I left out Meh because it was an obvious lost cause ):
Hideout May 7, 11 6:19 AM - 28 Rounds - Project won
Infraction Junction 74 [Attackers beaten] 77 Diablo Ridge
H.p. 200.103 (99%) : 196.466 (97%)
77 fighters have attacked the Fort. 74 defenders defended.
77 attackers fell. 26 defenders fell.
Smooth Transaction May 7, 11 10:08 PM - 27 Rounds - Project won
Boot Hill-MC 42 [Defenders beaten] 50 Infraction Junction
H.p. 121.678 (99%) : 142.015 (94%)
50 fighters have attacked the Fort. 42 defenders defended.
15 attackers fell. 42 defenders fell.
Alpe d Huez May 9, 11 2:04 AM - 54 Rounds - Project won
Bold City 95 [Defended the fort] 108 Kimball-Zion crew
H.p. 267.090 (97%) : 263.576 (98%)
108 fighters have attacked the Fort. 95 defenders defended.
98 attackers fell. 68 defenders fell.
Col du Tourmalet May 9, 11 11:43 PM - 26 Rounds - Project won
Bold City 120 [Attackers beaten] 136 Diablo Ridge
H.p. 318.603 (98%) : 317.448 (97%)
136 fighters have attacked the Fort. 120 defenders defended.
136 attackers fell. 40 defenders fell.
So... What does this show? The Project still outweighs us even when we do have the numbers. Even when we have the numbers advantage, we're decimated in 26-28 rounds. Even when we have the numbers advantage, the Project doesn't suffer heavy casualties like we do.
Need further proof? Look at the reports for each of those battles and compare the top defenders/attackers in "Damage Inflicted" as well as "Hit Count" and "Missed Shots".
Whether it be attacking or defending... "The server" favours The Project.
Or do you still think it's balanced?
DeletedUser
here, your side had 2897 hp per person, and we only only had 2840 hp per person, yet we won handsomely. How do you explain that?
Ah, here we go:
You are blaming us for aiming and dodging better. I see.
DeletedUser22685
I don't even play World 10 but if you're implying any form of server rigging then that's just ludicrous.
DeletedUser
Only thing ludicrous is that you felt the need to post that seeing that Helen had put it in quotation marks (" ").
Mods, can't live with em can't run a forum without em...