I think that any dynamic bonus depending on some conditions being met is the best solution than a constant that applies to absolutely everything (looks like a very bad solution). In addition, such a bonus can be adjusted to the changing game in future. One problem - SGG is focused on completing tasks to make money from players rather than improving gameplay
Big problem with this:
The attacker has one, very, very big advantage: they get to see the defense team and handpick the heroes.
Also the presence of stacks that cant be ran in defense to the same effect is another salient point.
Also germane to the conversation: there are alot of bonuses the attacker has that you may not have considered. Pretty sure there’s a whole thread on it, tbh.
Dont touch that defense bonus SG.
Which exactly? 5-10 for example. I couldn’t find similar topic
It’s not an advantage - 1. Any attack team cost nothing w/o shields on board 2. Good roster of heroes it’s advantage for defence as for attack
It seems like, there are legitimate arguments
to keep altering other game content
because of this one thing
I liked defense teams having the edge.
The challenge is greeted with enthusiasm. All this…
Stepping over a dollar to pick up a nickel philosophy
Is a bit comical, and scary! At the same time
- SGG will not change Telluria - they probably plan to make money from it when it appears in the tavern of legends next year
- It’s not just Telluria. She only showed how unbalanced this game is, and its developers are greedy
I ain’t even gotta say nothing. Just read this for yourself.
How is it not an advantage to be able to dynamically change who you play against a static defense team? You’ve got to be kidding me. I can tailor my team to exactly what the defense team has. GTV? OK I’ll roll out lady loki and my reds. That defense team cant subsequently change to a bunch of buffers and snipers to counteract MY pick of heroes, so explain to me, WITH SOUND LOGIC, how this is not an advantage?
Explain to me how, given the advantages contained in the above reference material, that 20% boost totally mitigates all of the advantages the attacker has. I highly doubt you come with anything other than anecdotal speculation.
So you can think that bonus is too much but you’re simply WRONG. Its you’re opinion, but it is factually wrong. Otherwise people’s win rates wouldn’t be as high as they are, mine included. Sorry but the “20% boogeyman” isn’t the culprit here, emblems and your relatively poor raiding skills are.
Man, this forum is awesome. After countless posts and threads complaining about the GTV front, and several nerfs and balancing acts, please don’t act tough and brag about one-shooting high powered defenses six times in war, champ.
I’m in a top 300 alliance and at best, I repat, at best, only one player of each alliance manages 6 wins. And not even every war. That’s 3.4% of players. So please stop bragging. It brings nothing substantial to the conversation.
You are only painting half the picture - that the attacking heroes won’t be able to do anything without the right tiles. However, the other half of the picture is that 90-95% of the time there are going to be enough starting and replacement tiles to win, as long as you have
- Correctly set up an attacking team with good synergies that has colour or other advantages over the defending team
- You manipulate the board well - both for getting the colours you want as well as balancing how much/how of the opponent team gets charged
- You time and target your specials well
Depending on how the stretngh of your team is relative to your opponent that % may increase or decrease - if you come in 400tp under then a slightly smaller number of boards become winnable as you have less time to manipulate them. If you come in 200tp over then you probably have 99% of boards that are winnable because the opponents take so much longer to bring you down.
Given the above conditions I firmly believe that 90-95% (give or take given relative tps) of matchups are winnable (less in wars, due to the added defense buffs), with the much smaller subset completely unwinnable due to unlucky boards. If it were not true then we would not have players consistently record 80%, 85%, 90%+ win rates
I can brag about what I want. I almost always try 6 OS, and most the time 4-5 land. Notice I never said I get 6 OS every war. I’m almost never below 200 pts on a 30/30 field. Show me where I said “I go 6/6 every war”. You cant because I didnt.
And yes I do pile up raid wins. Difference is my brags can be backed up.
Other thing, that was ONE sentence out of the entire post. Way to cherrypick.
And they add nothing? I disagree, it backs my claim up given that I’m pretty successful in the exact area we are talking about.
So if you’re going to try and troll, at least come halfway correct.
BTW @Homaclese whatd I score in war against your old alliance?
From memory it was around 260. So 5 one-shots and a scratch or 4 one-shots and 2 cripples
You failed to mention any losses so it stood to reason to think you only win.
But since you say that you pile up losses too. I stand corrected.
Over last 12 wars average score for me is 231.58 against consistently top 150 competition.
I’d say that qualifies me to say that the defenders bonus is not substantial enough to warrant a reduction.
Over 7000 raid wins, made global #1 more than once, and routinely sit at 2650+cups.
Are these brags? Sure.
Do they qualify my opinion with some accompanying level of expertise? You betcha.
Is it totally irrelevant to the topic at hand? Nope.
Carry on and happy hunting
Didnt say I “pile up losses” but it’s clear that reading comprehension is your top subject.
I do lose, from time to time.
I bet not as often as you
I think pile up wins and lump up losses is probably more accurate
Anytime. As long as you admit your losses, not just your one shots.
I read it, didn’t learn anything new. Quite doubtful advantages in compare of advantages of defence team
I said somewhere that I lose in raids because this bonus? Sorry, I did not read further, how are you trying to answer what you did not read yourself Just a waste of my time
This is the standard logic of the player who does not play with a rainbow. Unfortunately, most of those who play this game now think that way - to get more heroes of the same color and say about large percentage of wins. Yes, I agree - just playing with teams of 1-2 colors is much easier.
Basically, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you maintain your stance.
Edit: I did notice that you didnt mention losing raids, and I do apologize for that. It was someone else’s comment, and maybe not even in this thread. My fault.
But then I have to ask:why fix something that ain’t broke?
Not everyone goes mono. I use 3-2, and have alli mates that run 2-2-1, 4-1, 3-1-1 and mono. That seems like alot of options. Not sure rainbow has to be force fed to people. And I dont think removing the bonus will emphasize this type of play tbh.
But, yeah, like most people I can see the inflexibility and stubbornness to dissent present in your posts so I’ll leave it be.
Basically, you just trying chatting w/o reading in a not very cultured way. It’s just a waste of my time. I have not seen any conclusive evidence. I saw someone’s post on the forum (2018 year, cool!)))) and it’s not even yours Sorry, but when I start reading someone’s answer/post/message and see that the person is aggressive and ill-mannered, in most cases I don’t read it to the end.
On paper in every raid and war the attacker has several advantages:
you can pick heroes to counter defense (Mitsuko, Ursena, etc.), while defense remains same so has bo option to react on you picks
you decide which attack pattern you pick (3/2, mono, etc) and can build effective combos to beat defense
you decide which defenses you want to attack (mostly because you have heroes to counter it)
you can move tiles and while it is a gambling and you’ll never know the exact number of tiles you’ll get in a given time it is proven that smart board manipulation imcreases your chances of winning
you can chose which Heroes you want to attack, while defense attack is random (there is no evidence for anything else even if you might have an other feeling)
you always have priority first so you decide what happens next, while defense only reacts
Defense on the other hand has:
- 20% buff
- War Aid (Additional Buffer, Healer or AoE)
- Emblemstats-Advantage most of the time
The only issue i have is that damage calculating isn’t linear. Damage has an exponential curve. So stat booster also have an exponential effect.
Without Emblems i found wars/raids to be way easier. Now i like the challenge alot and think 3 OS should be the average while less then 3 and more then 4 should be an exception. However as i said about the exponential curve, emblems have made this imbalanced for a large amount of players. Having 25 maxed 5* isn’t the biggest indicator of likely war/raid results anymore.
Its about troops and how deep your attacking bench of high emblemed 5* is. I have ~70 maxed war heroes but for war against 4500+ defenses you have to filter anytging that does not have enough emblems. So i am left with 23 Heroes for war. However it takes way more time to build a deep bench of emblemed heroes than it takes to build 30 4+5* for war.
A Flat 20% bonus should not scale with statboosts through emblems and costumes and that is the real issue in my opinion. Because it does scale, the impact becomes higher with each talent node added.
That’s why i would love to see a change there not to make it easier to get 6 oneshots regulary.