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:
I suggest an A-N vs O-Z split... for obvious reasons
ZenDen Hideout May 1, 11 2:17 AM ZenDen 42 50 -Shadow Walkers-
50 fighters have attacked the Fort. 42 defenders defended.
15 attackers fell. 42 defenders fell.
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.
ooo look at us trying to balance the world!!!
Then you ask that we should talk and be constructive?
I really hope that MC boycotts all forts completely from now on.
Dont tell me! I am the one destroying this world?...
you just dont care about w10.
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..
Where 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.
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.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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I did no such thing i said it was not relevant in overall battles, more of a one off snapshot.
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?
ummm because the def advantages work for offliners just as well. I would expect Attack to have more online simply due to the numbers being greater allowed in a battle.
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).
Oh ive been back over old battles k its the actives that count not the amount in an alliance, it never has. In the past being outnumbered 2 - 1 was the norm & its not like that now but numbers to call on are moot when they dont fort.
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.
Like I say it was a bad time & hardly a normal battle timeslot. Im sure if it had kicked off at 11pm it would have been totally different.
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.
I was pointing out one battle makes the claim of numbers unbalance irrelevant and inconclusive thats all not anything else.
so what are you saying?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.
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.
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.)
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".
I don't even play World 10 but if you're implying any form of server rigging then that's just ludicrous."The server" favours The Project.
I don't even play World 10 but if you're implying any form of server rigging then that's just ludicrous.