Leader suicides

[Neobaron]

Is there any way to make defender losses proportional to the attackers leader total rather than just wiping out leaders on what amounts to an RNG? It seems to me like there would be better ways to deal with leader disparities.

Also consider the max logical number of leaders someone is going to suicide with. After a certain point, the attacker can just go over the defender and wouldn't need to suicide. So there is a max number over the defender total that you have to consider. Assuming the attacker can have infinity (summarizing/simplifying assertions) more leaders than the defender and adjusting according to that is silly.

I was going to add this to the previous post, but figured it would be overlooked. Read it as an addendum to the previous, not as an independent thought.

----

I very much disagree. It just means that an unclanned leader takedown on someone at 175 leader/land ratio is a 2 person job.

This I don't understand. If someone is trying to take down a leader player that isn't in a clan, they're going to run into the hit limit. Assuming they need to do a leader takedown, they're not getting extra ops.

Not to sound combative, but this is poor logic/a bad scenario.

[Shadow]

This I don't understand. If someone is trying to take down a leader player that isn't in a clan, they're going to run into the hit limit. Assuming they need to do a leader takedown, they're not getting extra ops.

Not to sound combative, but this is poor logic/a bad scenario.

Actually, this is exactly what a leader takedown is: suiciding enough to open attack ops. In a clan it's easy. Outside of a clan, it is an art. That is what we have to balance for.

[Kilkenne]

I don't have any other input to add here, because I think I'm out of my element when it comes to leader math. But I will say that suiciding someone 22 times in hopes that you can open attack ops is not an art. As you found out last turbo round, it's an exercise in how long you can poopsock online to fill up all of the defender's attack slots with more suicides.

I think the danger that is trying to be avoided is if you just jacked someone up on 100k land as a stoat and pumped leaders, you would be invincible outside of a clan if you logged in from time to time and maybe dropped some land or used a couple turns to run academy.

[Neobaron]

Actually, this is exactly what a leader takedown is: suiciding enough to open attack ops. In a clan it's easy. Outside of a clan, it is an art. That is what we have to balance for.

I can't really argue here as there have been no numbers posted regarding the ratio needed to be successful in open ops.

I don't believe, however, that 22 suicides (with the current numbers, not the ones you proposed) will be enough.

[Shadow]

Not at all. If 21 suicides is not enough, there are tons more tricks you can do to make it work. You can have the opener attacked to better than 175 ratio, then open 1 op at a time while someone else fills in more suicides in between. An unclanned leader takedown is almost always possible (almost) if you have the motivation to do the work.

Have either of you guys done unclanned leader takedowns before? It's a lot of fun, but before these changes it was far too easy.

(to open ops you need a 1.8 ratio advantage)

[Neobaron]

but before these changes it was far too easy.

I think this is the key. Before the current environment, it was easy. In the current environment, it is not.

Also, is all thats needed to be successful in an open op a 175 ratio for the attacker? It doesn't consider defender ratio?

---

to open ops you need a 1.8 ratio advantage

Leader/land or leader/hut

This cannot be achieved with 22 suicides in the current setup.

[Kilkenne]

I watched you guys do it last round in turbo, but you were clanned, and that's where my experience comes from. I'm just telling you that I'm very wary about any changes that strengthen leaders to a point where they might become unbeatable if you play them the right way. If you do, however, think that this would really let someone get a foot in the door with 22 attacks, then I can agree with it.

[Shadow]

Is there any way to make defender losses proportional to the attackers leader total rather than just wiping out leaders on what amounts to an RNG?

We had that before the change. The problem there is that if the defender gets a big lead on the attacker, leader takedowns are no longer a viable option.

It works in the case where the defender and attacker are on similar leader numbers, but that is not usually the situation when someone wants to do a takedown.

I think this is the key. Before the current environment, it was easy. In the current environment, it is not.

Also, is all thats needed to be successful in an open op a 175 ratio for the attacker? It doesn't consider defender ratio?

...yes it is. It is extremely easy. Just a matter of throwing turns at something.

Leader/land or leader/hut

This cannot be achieved with 22 suicides in the current setup.

Your attack ratio needs to be 1.8 times larger than their defense ratio.  And yes, it absolutely can. I will set it up for you on the test server if you like.

[Neobaron]

And yes, it absolutely can. I will set it up for you on the test server if you like.

For the specialist race, or for all?

[Shadow]

For any race. It's just a matter of manipulating your land total after you max out your leaders.

In any case - the current problem with unclanned takedowns is not the suicides, it is the losses you take while doing open attack op. We put these in originally to deter people from doing it to indiers, but I think we need to mod it so that you don't lose much if you do it on a leader player.



EDIT: just did a test

from 175 ratio, 22 suicides takes you down to about 115 ratio. So to open attack op on that, someone needs about 1.65 times more land than the defender, at 175 ratio. Difficult if they are locking, easy if they are a dropper.

On the other hand, they could start at 175 ratio on the same level of land as the defender at 175 ratio, and get hit down to 0.6 times the defender's land, and be taking leader desertions per turn, but still be able to open attack ops one at a time while the other guy fills in the hits with suicides. By the time the opener's leader stop deserting, you will be able to open attack op normally.

So: It is not as simple as 22 suicides to take down an unclanned person who starts at 175 leader/land ratio. And it shouldn't be. But it is efinitely not impossible. You can either go the route of getting more land than the defender, which works a treat if they are a land dropper, or you could go the route of getting hit over ratio, which works if they don't drop land.


Now remember as well that people rarely finish on 175 ratio if they are not droppers. In fact never. So there are cases where 22 suicides will do it outright even unclanned.

You don't think that that is easy?

[Firetooth]

For unclanned takedowns, you seem to be excluding the possibility that warlord could be attacked above a 175 ratio, meaning they are harder to damage and, unless they had their land taken a whilst ago, have less attacks to use for suicides. If somebody unclanned gets maxed on attacks they have a great ratio and no available attacks, even if captures are used their ratio still rises overall.

I also agree the op.attack losses are way too high...any chance they could be decreased for land farm, too?  :D

[Shadow]

For unclanned takedowns, timing is everything. I am assuming that attacker has picked a time where this has not happened.

I never said losses were too high in general. Just that they are too high against leader players.

[Firetooth]

Right, but you're also assuming the defender doesn't have somebody gather land off them when they finish. If they have an organized enough team, there may never be a viable oppurtunity to take the down short of onlining.

Also, with some timezones, the attacker may never realistically get a chance to hit the defender before somebody has hit them to low land. 

@ the open attack losses: That's what I was agreeing on ;)

Also, I was serious with the land farm thing...losing like 500k leaders because somebody dropped 100k and the farm is maxed on 50 or whatever isn't fun.

[The Lady Shael]

I didn't really read into this too much, but is this something that is easily intuitive to a new player? I'd like to avoid having it be almost a requirement to know the exact numbers and math to do specific actions. Very few people know this math well or have the means to figure it out.

[Shadow]

Leaders have always been a bit of a mystery to new players. To make it intuitive we would have to make them work like regular troops, I think.